Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment · Practicable sustainable options for...
Transcript of Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment · Practicable sustainable options for...
Practicable sustainable options for
asbestos waste treatment
Colophon
Authors
Dr. Kees Le Blansch
Ing. Ko den Boeft
Ing. Jan Tempelman
Bureau KLB
P.O. box 137
2501 CC Den Haag
Telephone: +31 (0)70 302 58 30
Fax: +31 (0)70 302 58 39
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.bureauklb.nl
Date: June 18, 2018
Report on a project commissioned by the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Water
Management
Copyright Bureau KLB
Nothing from this publication may be multiplied and/or made public by means of print, photocopy, microfilm or any
other medium without preceding written permission by the copyright holder
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
3
List of contents
Preface 5
Executive summary 7
Samenvatting 13
1. Introduction 21 1.1 Background and goal of this assessment 21 1.2 Methodology of the study 23 1.3 About this report 25
2. Asbestos waste treatment techniques: basic mechanisms 27 2.1 Introduction 27 2.2 Landfill (and stabilisation) 27 2.3 Thermal treatment 28 2.4 Chemical treatment 29 2.5 Mechanical treatment 30 2.6 Biological treatment 30
3. The assessment parameters 33 3.1 Introduction 33 3.2 Technical parameters 35 3.3 Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable) 37 3.4 Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable) 39 3.5 Overall assessment parameters 41 3.6 The assessment model 45
4. Assessment of asbestos waste treatment techniques –
reference 47 4.1 Introduction 47 4.2 Assessment of the reference scenario: ACW landfill 47 4.3 Technology readiness level ACW landfill 47 4.4 Distance to market ACW landfill 47 4.5 Sustainability aspects ACW landfill 48 4.6 Area of application ACW landfill 48
5. Assessment of thermal asbestos waste treatment techniques 49 5.1 Technology readiness level thermal ACW treatment techniques 49 5.2 Distance to market thermal ACW treatment techniques 50 5.3 Sustainability aspects thermal ACW treatment techniques 52 5.4 Area of application thermal ACW treatment techniques 54
6. Assessment of chemical asbestos waste treatment techniques 57 6.1 Technology readiness level chemical ACW treatment techniques 57
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
4
6.2 Distance to market chemical ACW treatment techniques 58 6.3 Sustainability aspects chemical ACW treatment techniques 59 6.4 Area of application chemical ACW treatment techniques 60
7. Assessment of mechanical asbestos waste treatment
techniques 61 7.1 Technology readiness level mechanical ACW treatment techniques 61 7.2 Distance to market mechanical ACW treatment techniques 61 7.3 Sustainability aspects mechanical ACW treatment techniques 62 7.4 Area of application mechanical ACW treatment techniques 63
8. Assessment of biological asbestos waste treatment techniques 65 8.1 Technology readiness level biological ACW treatment techniques 65 8.2 Distance to market biological ACW treatment techniques 65 8.3 Sustainability aspects biological ACW treatment techniques 66 8.4 Area of application biological ACW treatment techniques 66
9. Summarizing overview of the assessment 69 9.1 Introduction 69 9.2 Technology readiness levels 69 9.3 Distances to market 70 9.4 Sustainability aspects 71 9.5 Areas of application 74
10. Conclusions 77
Annex 1: Analysis sheets 81 Analysis sheet: Landfill 83 Analysis sheet: Thermal processes 87 Analysis sheet: Chemical processes 99 Analysis sheet: Mechanical processes 105 Analysis sheet: Biological processes 115
Annex 2: List of consulted persons 121
Annex 3: References 123
The separate Appendix report contains:
– Part 1: Report of the Sounding Board meeting (November 2017)
– Part 2: Interview reports (interviews held with initiators/experts)
– Part 3: Reviews by Sounding Board participants
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
5
Preface
This report could not have been written without the help, expertise and brainpower of a
large group of people. We therefore like to express our thanks to:
– the members of the Advisory Commission, who helped us in our endeavours by asking
the right questions; thank you Ronald, Nienke, Peter, Rosalien, Mart, Hein, Marjorie
and Evelyn;
– the members of our international Sounding Board, who gave us their fresh opinions and
let us pick their brains; thank you Kris, Garry, Sam, Reiner, Hielke, Markus, John, Sven,
René, Peter and Matthijs;
– the experts who provided us with their insights from their practical work on the
development and introduction of the techniques; thanks to you all;
– all the other people who helped us by critically reflect on our work, amongst whom the
project team of the parallel Tauw project (thank you Jeroen and Edwin) and the
programme team of ‘Ruimte in regels’.
Notwithstanding all this help and all the efforts we made to be complete and precise in our
research and reporting, the responsibility for any possible omissions or errors in this report
lies solely with the authors.
Kees Le Blansch, Ko den Boeft, Jan Tempelman
Utrecht / Apeldoorn / Deventer
18 June 2018
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
7
On the lookout for practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment - A technical, sustainability and market assessment Executive summary
The report 'On the lookout for practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment'
describes the results of an assessment project. This project was commissioned by the Dutch
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (I&W) and was carried out in the second
half of 2017 and the first half of 2018. This project aimed to establish the state of the
development of techniques that make it possible to treat asbestos containing waste and to
reuse the remaining product, instead of having to send it to landfill sites. This summary
outlines the main outcomes of this study.
Background of the project
The Netherlands will have to be a circular economy by 2050.1 Raw materials must be used and
reused efficiently, without harmful emissions to the environment. This is not a simple task for
some raw materials, like, for example, asbestos containing materials. There are so many risks
involved in dealing with asbestos, that its fibres have to be fully destroyed in a safe way before
it can be reused. If not, all one can do is to safely store and manage it. There are several
techniques to strip material from its asbestos content and make it suitable for reuse. So far,
there are no such installations available in the Netherlands. In anticipation of initiatives to
create such installations, Dutch government has commissioned a systematic review of the
development of these techniques and to assess whether they are ready for practicable
sustainable application. This was done in the current project.
Parallel to this project, research has been commissioned into what is necessary to ensure that
the switch from landfill to processing can actually take place.2
Purpose and scope of the project
The project aimed at two things:
1. to develop a method to determine the sustainable practical applicability of asbestos waste
treatment techniques (the 'assessment' method); and
2. to determine the current practical applicability of sustainable asbestos destruction
techniques (the 'assessment').
For clarity:
– The project identified various techniques, for which all relevant parameters have been
determined, not only technical issues. After all: ‘practical applicability' is not just about
whether the techniques perform as intended (turn asbestos into a harmless and reusable
1 Nota ‘Nederland circulair in 2050 –Rijksbreed programma circulaire economie’, 2016. 2 Tauw: Onderzoek procesvoorwaarden voor duurzame verwerking asbesthoudend afval. 2018.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
8
material), but also whether this can be done in a way that is safe for employees, local
residents and the environment (and also whether or not there are, for example, high CO2
emissions) and whether a company can apply these techniques in a profitable way.
– In the Netherlands the process of decontamination, removal and dumping / treatment of
asbestos is quite elaborate. This project only looked at the changes that occur when
asbestos waste is no longer landfilled, but treated and reused.3
– In this project no new, experimental research has been done into the techniques or into the
effects of their application. The project team has formed its opinion by making use of all
knowledge that is presently available – in literature and by consulting experts.
The approach of the project
A lot of research has already been done on techniques to render asbestos harmless. In
Flanders, a report prepared by OVAM on this subject was published in 2016, which was taken
as the starting point for this project. 4 The project team has organised a Sounding Board of
Dutch and international experts, in which insights have been exchanged on the basis of the
OVAM report. Following on this, the project team has drawn up its own assessment method.
Next, a search was carried out for newer and additional information, in literature and through
experts involved in the development of asbestos waste treatment techniques that are also
aimed at the Netherlands. This information was analysed using the assessment method that
was developed. Conclusions were drawn about the current state of sustainable practical
applicability of asbestos waste treatment techniques (which, subsequently, the same Sounding
Board critically reviewed). An Advisory Commission set up by the Ministry of I&W supervised
the course of the entire investigation.
About the asbestos waste treatment techniques
There are four basic techniques for destroying asbestos fibres, with several intermediate forms.
1. Thermal techniques; these techniques are based on the fact that asbestos decomposes at
high temperature (and hence is no longer carcinogenic). For example, there are techniques
for destroying asbestos with ovens, plasma torches or microwave radiation. By adding
chemicals or clay, the process can be speeded up and operated at a lower temperature.
2. Chemical techniques; also with chemicals one can destroy asbestos fibres. There are
techniques that work with acids and those that work with bases. Sometimes the process is
accelerated by bringing it to higher temperature and/or pressure (there are also chemical
processes that generate heat and therefore require cooling). Often an additional purpose is
to be able to use organic waste, waste acids from industry or captured CO2.
3. Mechanical techniques; the fibres can be broken down by grinding asbestos very finely. For
this purpose, special high-energy mills are used, which not only effect physical, but also
chemical and physico-chemical transformations, resulting in very fine, non-toxic powder.
4. Biological techniques; finally, fungi and bacteria are also found to be able to break down
asbestos. Sometimes this happens – very slowly – in nature. With the creation of the right
conditions, this process can be speeded up considerably. For now it has been proved that
loose fibres of asbestos of the chrysotile type can be broken down in this way.
3 Research into the functioning of the system that regulates this process was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. See: Tauw: Onderzoek functioneren certificatiestelsel asbest, 2017 4 OVAM: State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
9
The assessment method
Now how can one determine to what extent these techniques are practicable and sustainable?
The OVAM report mentions various characteristics of these techniques that provide
indications for this. In the present report it has been decided to translate these characteristics
into four overarching parameters: (1) maturity of the technique, (2) distance to market, (3)
sustainability aspects and (4) area of application. These four parameters are about different -
and also to be valued differently - matters that cannot be summarized in one score. Together
they show where a technology stands in its development and to what extent it can be applied in
a practical sustainable way.
In part, the parameters are directly related to physical characteristics of a technique. Other,
non-technical issues also play a role, varying from the amount of effort that is made to develop
the technique, to circumstances on the market (for example the price of energy or steel), in
government policy (which waste is allowed to be landfilled at what cost) or in society (the
perceived risks of a specific technique). The image that emerges from these indicators is
therefore always of a qualitative nature and subject to change.
What characteristics are expressed in these overarching parameters?
– Technological maturity
As a measure for the technological maturity of an asbestos waste treatment technique, the
'TRL' is used ('Technological Readiness Level'); an indicator developed by NASA and
meanwhile internationally recognized, ranging from 1 (the very first invention) to 9
(industrially operated technique). An asbestos waste treatment technique has a higher TRL
as it is more of a proven technique on industrial level, as more of the technical parameters
are known and as the process is better controlled.
– Distance to the market
This parameter concerns the mostly non-technological aspects that determine whether a
technology can reasonably be expected to be licensable, marketable and profitable. The
parameter is based on indicators for the extent to which a technique is proven, there is a
business case for its operation, the incurred financial risks can be covered and there appear
to be administrative and public acceptance.
– Sustainability aspects
The term 'sustainability aspects' is used as shorthand for all risks, circular aspects and
other health and environmental aspects associated with a technique. This includes a
number of parameters that require further explanation.
Fibre destruction; this parameter forms the core of an effective technique. Without the
(controlled) assurance of complete degradation of asbestos fibres to a non-toxic
product, risks remain and there is no reusability.
Reusability; in most cases, treatment of asbestos-containing waste or asbestos cement,
after complete fibre destruction, yields filler with some adhesive properties (not as
powerful as new cement, sometimes comparable to clay, for certain applications
(certified) usable and therefore of some value). But sometimes the adhesive properties
are negligible and the residual product can only be used as an inert filler of limited
value.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
10
In certain cases, reuse of asbestos is of secondary importance; another part of the waste
stream has the economic value. This is the case, for example, for recycling asbestos-
containing metal scrap into clean, reusable metal.
Finally, in soil contaminated with asbestos, the economic value of asbestos waste
treatment does not primarily lie in the reusability of the soil itself, but also in the
excavation and remediation costs that are avoided.
Risk aspects; the less asbestos-containing waste is transported and pre-treated (dried,
shredded or crushed), the less strict measures are necessary for the protection of
employees, local residents and the environment, and the smaller the risks that
something can go wrong. In addition, certain technologies may require measures to
work safely with aggressive substances, increased temperature and/or pressure.
Potential CO2 footprint; asbestos waste treatment techniques that use relatively more
energy have a larger potential carbon footprint (although of course this can be reduced
by using energy from renewable sources). For a good comparison, however, this
potential footprint must be balanced by what CO2 emissions the product to be reused
would have caused if it had been produced in a regular manner. Steel production from
ore or ordinary metal scrap requires similar amounts of energy as recycling asbestos
containing metal scrap. The same goes for the regular production of cement. The
production of less active fillers requires less energy, but also that needs to be taken into
account.
– Area of application
The last overarching parameter concerns which types of asbestos-containing waste can be
treated most effectively and most cost-effectively using that specific technique.
The assessment
The level and type of development of the various techniques were described and assessed using
these parameters. The parameters were first described in detail in the so-called 'analysis
sheets'. Next they have been summarized in overview tables. From there, a number of
conclusions were drawn about the current sustainable practical applicability of the various
techniques. In summary, these conclusions come down to the following.
Thermal techniques
Closest to (the Dutch) market appears to be the technique for recycling asbestos containing
steel scrap in steel melting furnaces. In essence, this is a regular steel recycling technique with
melting furnaces, in which special measures have been taken for dealing with asbestos-
containing steel scrap in a safe way. The technology is mature, the business case appears to be
sound and there are no indications of lack of administrative and public acceptance at the
designated location.
Several other thermal techniques are (a little) more distanced to the (Dutch) market, but could
possibly move fast forward (possibly in a few years’ time) if the conditions are right. An
important example of this is the technique for thermal denaturation, in which asbestos-
containing waste is driven (for 75 hours) through a tunnel kiln and is brought to a temperature
of 1000 °C, as a result of which the asbestos loses its fibre structure. The distance to market of
this technique is mainly a matter of non-technical issues. One of those issues is that in order
for this technique to obtain a viable business case, the gate fees must be on a higher level than
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
11
the present fees for landfill. Furthermore, a steady flow of asbestos cement feedstock is
required, which in turn requires buffering capacity and logistic guarantees, as well as
acceptance (by authorities and market) of a certified end-product.
Something similar applies to the thermo-chemical treatment technique; a combustion
technique in which the decomposition of the asbestos (at a temperature around 1200 0C) is
speeded up by adding chemicals. However, for this technique also some final technical tests
must be passed.
All thermal techniques require larger, static installations and relatively much energy.
Consequently they have a relatively large potential CO2 footprint, although it must be taken
into account that the end-products can be substitutes for products whose regular (new)
production also entails CO2 emissions. For that reason, for example, the potential CO2
footprint of recycling asbestos-containing steel scrap is small.
Due to the size and capacity of the installations, there will be room for one or at the most a few
of them in the Netherlands, which implies that the asbestos-containing waste has to be
transported to these installations (extra transport when compared to regional landfill). In
addition, the processes for recycling asbestos-containing steel scrap and thermo-chemical
treatment require pre-treatment of the waste. For all this, measures are necessary to protect
employees, residents and the environment against the risks of exposure to asbestos. This is
somewhat different for thermal denaturation; no pre-processing is required here, as the
asbestos-containing waste, including the packaging in polythene bags, goes straight in the
oven.
Mechanical techniques
Something rather similar is the case for the mechano-chemical treatment technique. In this
technique, dried and shredded asbestos waste is led through a cascade of high-energy mills in
which steel balls and sand rotate. In the collisions of rotors, balls, sand and waste, local hot
spots occur with very high temperatures (above 1000 °C). Combinations of mechanical,
thermal and chemical processes destroy the asbestos fibres and make the waste harmless. The
technique is rather mature but some final tests on industrial scale are still taking place. To
enter the Dutch market, also a number of practical issues must be addressed, ranging from
meeting pre-processing requirements to location and permit arrangements. On the other
hand, the mechano-chemical treatment technique is more mobile and flexible and less capital
intensive than many of the other techniques, which may allow for a relatively fast entrance on
the market.
The mechano-chemical treatment technique uses less energy and has a relatively modest
potential CO2 footprint. The scalable and mobile nature of the installation means that it can be
placed close to places where asbestos containing waste originates or at regional landfill sites.
This may lead to less transport of asbestos-containing waste. However, pre-processing of this
waste is required (drying and size reduction), which will also require the necessary protective
measures.
Biological techniques
Biological techniques – which aim at accelerating the natural degradation of asbestos fibres by
bacteria or fungi – are currently still technologically immature. However, soon as this
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
12
technique is somewhat more under control, an immediate positive business case can be
expected for in situ treatment of asbestos contaminated soil, and the barriers to entry to the
market appear to be very low. Energy consumption and potential CO2 footprint of biological
techniques are minimal. However, the safety of working with fungi, bacteria and any additives
must be guaranteed.
Chemical techniques
The historical record of chemical asbestos waste treatment techniques is rather poor. It has
been known for quite some time that asbestos fibres can be destroyed by attacking them with
strong acids or bases. Attempts to apply this principle on larger scale have so far mostly failed
because of problems with controlling the risks of the chemical process and the need to
neutralize the end-product before it can be reused. Still, a new development drive has come
into Dutch trials, also from an interest of making use of industrial acid waste streams. For the
time being, however, there still is a considerable amount of technical and non-technical issues
that needs to be addressed, including some relating to sustainability aspects. The distance to
market, therefore, still appears to be big.
Other assessed techniques for asbestos waste treatment are either still in an embryonic stage,
are in a standstill after less successful pilot studies, or are in the slow process of being scaled
up.
Areas of application
A further look into the areas of application of the different techniques indicates that several of
them may have their own markets or niches of asbestos waste that they can treat most
effectively and profitably:
– recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces: asbestos containing
steel scrap;
– thermal denaturation: a constant and homogeneous stream of asbestos cement roofings or
pipes;
– thermo-chemical treatment: a mix of asbestos containing waste and high-energy waste
(‘sorter residues’ to be used as alternative process fuel);
– mechano-chemical treatment: (differing amounts, due to the scalable technique, and more
local) homogeneous stream of asbestos cement;
– biological treatment of asbestos in soil: soil contaminated with asbestos fibres (chrysotile),
possibly in situ.
Kees Le Blansch, Ko den Boeft, Jan Tempelman
Utrecht / Apeldoorn / Deventer
18 June 2018
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
13
On the lookout for practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment - A technical, sustainability and market assessment
Samenvatting
Het rapport ‘On the lookout for practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment’
beschrijft een ‘assessment’-project van asbestafvalverwerkingstechnieken. Dit project is
uitgevoerd in de tweede helft van 2017 en de eerste helft van 2018, in opdracht van het
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat (IenW). Het project was erop gericht om vast te
stellen wat de stand van zaken is van de ontwikkeling van technieken om asbesthoudend afval
te kunnen verwerken en het verwerkingsproduct nuttig te kunnen hergebruiken, in plaats van
het te storten. Deze samenvatting geeft de uitkomsten van dit project op hoofdlijnen weer.
Achtergrond van het project
Nederland moet in 2050 een circulaire economie zijn.5 Grondstoffen moeten efficiënt worden
ingezet en hergebruikt, zonder schadelijke emissies naar het milieu. Voor sommige
grondstoffen is dat geen eenvoudige opgave. Dat geldt bijvoorbeeld voor asbesthoudende
materialen. Aan de omgang met asbest kleven zoveel risico’s, dat je het óf op een veilige
manier helemaal onschadelijk moet kunnen maken voor je het kunt hergebruiken, óf je het zó
moet opslaan dat het nooit meer vrijkomt. Er zijn technieken om asbesthoudend materiaal
onschadelijk en voor hergebruik geschikt te maken. Maar kant en klare oplossingen
(installaties) zijn er in Nederland nog niet. Daarom heeft de Nederlandse Rijksoverheid
opdracht gegeven om de ontwikkeling van deze technieken systematisch tegen het licht te
houden en te beoordelen of ze klaar zijn om in de praktijk toe te passen. En dat is wat er in dit
project is gebeurd.
Parallel aan dit project heeft onderzoek plaatsgevonden naar wat nodig is om de
overschakeling van storten naar verwerking daadwerkelijk te laten plaatsvinden.6
Doel en reikwijdte van het project
Het ging bij het project om twee dingen:
1. het ontwikkelen van een methode om de duurzame praktische toepasbaarheid van
asbestverwerkingstechnieken te kunnen vaststellen (de ‘assessment’ methode); en
2. het vaststellen van de huidige stand van praktische toepasbaarheid van duurzame
oplossingen (het ‘assessment’).
5 Nota ‘Nederland circulair in 2050 –Rijksbreed programma circulaire economie’, 2016. 6 Tauw: Onderzoek procesvoorwaarden voor duurzame verwerking asbesthoudend afval. 2018.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
14
Voor de duidelijkheid:
– Het project richt zich op diverse technieken, en kijkt naar méér dan alleen technische
zaken. Immers: bij ‘praktische toepasbaarheid’ gaat het er niet alleen om of de technieken
doen waarvoor ze bedoeld zijn (asbest onschadelijk en het restproduct herbruikbaar
maken), maar ook of het voor werknemers, omwonenden en het milieu veilig kan gebeuren
(en ook bijvoorbeeld of er niet een hoge CO2-uitstoot plaatsvindt) en of er op een rendabele
manier een bedrijf mee opgericht en draaiend gehouden kan worden.
– Er komt in Nederland veel kijken bij het saneren, afvoeren en storten/verwerken van
asbest. In dit project is alleen gekeken naar wat er verandert als asbesthoudend afval niet
meer gestort, maar verwerkt en hergebruikt wordt. Aangezien de huidige manier van asbest
saneren daar niet door verandert, is daar verder dus ook niet naar gekeken.7
– Er is in dit project geen nieuw, eigen experimenteel onderzoek gedaan naar technieken of
naar de effecten van hun toepassing. Het projectteam heeft zich daarover een oordeel
gevormd door gebruik te maken van alle kennis die daarover tot op heden – in de literatuur
en bij experts – beschikbaar is.
De aanpak van het project
Er is al veel onderzoek gedaan naar technieken om asbest onschadelijk te maken. In
Vlaanderen verscheen in 2016 een door OVAM opgesteld rapport over dit onderwerp, dat voor
dit project als vertrekpunt is genomen.8 Het projectteam heeft een klankbordgroep van
Nederlandse en internationale experts samengesteld, waarin op basis van het OVAM-rapport
inzichten zijn uitgewisseld. Mede op grond daarvan heeft het projectteam een eigen
assessment methode opgesteld. Vervolgens is gericht gezocht naar nieuwere en aanvullende
informatie, zowel in de literatuur als door experts te interviewen die betrokken zijn bij de
diverse asbestverwerkingstechnieken waarvoor initiatieven zijn om ze in Nederland te gaan
toepassen. Deze informatie is met behulp van de ontwikkelde assessment methode
geanalyseerd. Op grond daarvan zijn conclusies getrokken over de huidige stand van
praktische toepasbaarheid van duurzame asbestverwerkingstechnieken (waar dezelfde
klankbordgroep vervolgens haar kritische licht over heeft laten schijnen). Op het verloop van
het gehele onderzoek heeft een door het Ministerie van IenW samengestelde begeleidings-
commissie toegezien.
Over de asbestverwerkingstechnieken
Er zijn vier basistechnieken om asbestvezels te vernietigen, met een aantal tussenvormen.
1. Thermische technieken; deze berusten op het gegeven dat asbest bij hoge temperatuur zijn
vezelstructuur (en daarmee zijn carcinogene eigenschappen) verliest. Er zijn bijvoorbeeld
technieken om asbest met ovens, plasmatoortsen of magnetronstraling te vernietigen. Door
chemicaliën of klei toe te voegen kan men het proces versnellen en op lagere temperatuur
laten werken.
2. Chemische technieken; ook met chemicaliën kunnen asbestvezels worden vernietigd. Er
zijn technieken die met zuren of met basen werken. Soms versnelt men het proces door het
op hogere temperatuur en/of druk te brengen. (Er zijn ook processen die van zichzelf warm
7 Het ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid heeft recentelijk onderzoek laten doen naar het functioneren van het stelsel dat dit proces reguleert. Zie: Tauw: Onderzoek functioneren certificatiestelsel asbest, 2017 8 OVAM: State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
15
worden en waarbij juist koeling moet plaatsvinden). Vaak is een bijbedoeling om hiermee
ook organisch afval, afvalzuren uit de industrie of afgevangen CO2 nuttig te kunnen
gebruiken.
3. Mechanische technieken; door asbest heel fijn te malen kunnen de vezels worden afge-
broken. Hiervoor worden speciale hoge-energie molens gebruikt, die niet alleen fysische,
maar ook chemische en fysisch-chemische transformaties bewerkstelligen, waardoor heel
fijn, niet-toxisch poeder overblijft.
4. Biologische technieken; tot slot blijken ook schimmels en bacteriën asbest te kunnen
afbreken. Soms gebeurt dat ook al – heel langzaam – in de natuur. Met het creëren van de
juiste omstandigheden kan men dit proces aanzienlijk versnellen. Vooralsnog is voor losse
vezels van het asbesttype chrysotiel aangetoond dat ze op deze manier kunnen worden
afgebroken.
De assessment methode
Hoe kan nu bepaald worden in hoeverre deze technieken duurzaam praktisch toepasbaar zijn?
Het OVAM-rapport noemt diverse kenmerken van de technieken die daarvoor indicaties
geven. In het onderhavige rapport is ervoor gekozen deze kenmerken te vertalen in vier
overkoepelende parameters: (1) rijpheid van de techniek, (2) afstand tot de markt, (3)
duurzaamheidsaspecten en (4) toepassingsgebied. Deze vier parameters gaan over verschillen-
de – en ook verschillend te waarderen – zaken die niet in één score zijn samen te vatten. Bij
elkaar geven ze weer waar een techniek in zijn ontwikkeling momenteel staat en hoe duurzaam
toepasbaar deze is.
Voor een deel hangen de parameters rechtstreeks samen met fysische kenmerken van een
techniek. Daarnaast spelen ook andere, niet-technische zaken een rol, variërend van de
inspanning die wordt gedaan om een techniek te ontwikkelen, tot omstandigheden op de
markt (bijvoorbeeld de prijs voor energie of staal), in het beleid (welk afval mag hoe worden
gestort) of in de samenleving (de risicopercepties bij een specifieke techniek). Het beeld dat uit
de vier indicatoren naar voren komt, is dan ook altijd kwalitatief en aan verandering
onderhevig.
Wat voor zaken komen in deze overkoepelende parameters tot uiting?
– Technologische rijpheid
Als maat voor de technologische rijpheid van een asbestverwerkingstechniek wordt de
‘TRL’ gebruikt (‘Technological Readiness Level’); een door de NASA ontwikkelde en
inmiddels internationaal erkende graadmeter die loopt van 1 (de allereerste uitvinding) tot
9 (op industriële schaal toegepaste techniek). Een asbestverwerkingstechniek krijgt een
hogere TRL naarmate het meer een bewezen techniek is, meer van de technische
parameters bekend zijn en het proces beter beheerst wordt.
– Afstand tot de markt
Deze parameter betreft de diverse, goeddeels niet-technische, parameters die maken dat
wel of niet te verwachten is dat een toepassing van een techniek vergund en geaccepteerd,
vermarkt en kostendekkend kan worden. Hieronder liggen parameters die aangeven in
hoeverre sprake lijkt te zijn van een bewezen techniek, een renderend verdienmodel,
afdekbare financiële risico’s en bestuurlijke en publieke acceptatie.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
16
– Duurzaamheidsaspecten
De term ‘duurzaamheidsaspecten’ wordt gebruikt als een soort verzamelterm voor alle
risico’s, circulaire aspecten en andere gezondheids- en milieuaspecten die met een techniek
samenhangen. Daaronder gaat een aantal parameters schuil die nadere toelichting
behoeven.
Vezelvernietiging; deze parameter vormt de kern van een effectieve techniek. Zonder de
(gecontroleerde) zekerheid van volledige afbraak van asbestvezels tot een niet-toxisch
restproduct blijft er sprake van risico’s en is er geen herbruikbaarheid.
Herbruikbaarheid; in de meeste gevallen levert verwerking van asbesthoudend afval of
asbestcement, na volledige vezelvernietiging, een vulmiddel op met nog enige hecht-
werking. Veelal is dit niet meer zo krachtig als nieuw cement, maar is het voor bepaalde
toepassingen (gecertificeerd) bruikbaar (bijvoorbeeld als kleivervanger) en is het dus
van enige waarde. Maar soms is de hechtende werking verwaarloosbaar en is het
restproduct alleen nog bruikbaar als inert vulmiddel van beperkte waarde.
In bepaalde gevallen is hergebruik van de reststof van het asbest van secundair belang
en heeft vooral een ander onderdeel van de afvalstroom economische waarde; dit is
bijvoorbeeld het geval bij recycling van asbesthoudend staalschroot tot schoon,
herbruikbaar staal.
Bij met asbest vervuilde grond is de economische waarde van asbestverwerking niet in
de eerste plaats gelegen in de herbruikbaarheid van de grond zelf, alswel in de
uitgespaarde afgraving- en saneringskosten.
Risicoaspecten; hoe minder asbesthoudend afval getransporteerd en voorbehandeld
(ofwel gedroogd, geshredderd of vermalen) moet worden, hoe minder maatregelen
noodzakelijk zijn om werknemers, omwonenden en het milieu te beschermen, en hoe
kleiner de risico’s dat er een keer iets misgaat. Daarnaast kunnen bij bepaalde tech-
nieken maatregelen noodzakelijk zijn om veilig te kunnen werken met agressieve
chemische stoffen, verhoogde temperatuur en/of druk.
Potentiële CO2-voetafdruk; verwerkingstechnieken die relatief meer energie gebruiken,
hebben een grotere potentiële CO2-voetafdruk (al kan die natuurlijk verkleind worden
door meer energie van hernieuwbare bronnen te betrekken). Voor een goede
vergelijking moet op deze potentiële voetafdruk echter in mindering worden gebracht
wat het te hergebruiken product aan CO2-uitstoot teweeg zou hebben gebracht als het op
reguliere wijze was vervaardigd. Staalproductie uit erts of gewoon staalschroot, vraagt
net zo goed veel energie als de recycling van asbesthoudend schroot. Datzelfde geldt
voor de reguliere productie van cement. De productie van minder actieve vulmiddelen
vraagt minder energie, maar ook dat moet worden meegewogen.
– Toepassingsgebied
De laatste overkoepelende parameter betreft welke typen asbesthoudend afval met een
bepaalde techniek het meest effectief en rendabel te verwerken zijn.
De beoordeling
Met behulp van deze parameters zijn de ontwikkelingsstadia van de verschillende technieken
beschreven en beoordeeld. Eerst zijn de parameters uitgebreid beschreven in zogenaamde
‘analysis sheets’. Vervolgens zijn deze samengevat in overzichtstabellen. Van daaruit is een
aantal conclusies getrokken over de huidige duurzame praktische toepasbaarheid van de
diverse technieken. Samengevat komen deze op het volgende neer.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
17
Thermisch
Het dichtst bij de (Nederlandse) markt bevindt zich de techniek voor de recycling van
asbesthoudende staalschroot in smeltovens. In wezen gaat het hier om een reguliere
metaalrecyclingtechniek met smeltovens, waarbij speciale maatregelen zijn getroffen om veilig
met asbesthoudend schroot te kunnen omgaan. Deze techniek is rijp, er lijkt sprake van een
solide verdienmodel en er is momenteel niets dat wijst op gebrek aan bestuurlijke of publieke
acceptatie op de beoogde locatie.
Diverse andere thermische technieken staan iets verder af van de Nederlandse markt, maar
zouden zich niettemin snel kunnen aandienen als de omstandigheden in gunstige richting
ontwikkelen. Een belangrijk voorbeeld daarvan is de techniek voor thermische denaturatie,
waarbij asbesthoudend afval (75 uur) door een tunneloven wordt gereden en op een
temperatuur van 1000 0C wordt gebracht, waardoor het asbest zijn vezelstructuur verliest.
Voor deze techniek is de afstand tot de Nederlandse markt vooral een kwestie van niet-
technische factoren. Zo kan alleen sprake zijn van een sluitend verdienmodel als een hoger
tarief per ton te verwerken asbest kan worden gerekend dan het huidige storttarief. Bovendien
dient men verzekerd te zijn van een gestage aanvoer van te verwerken asbesthoudend afval,
wat op zijn beurt enige buffercapaciteit en logistieke waarborgen vergt, alsook van acceptatie
(door overheid en markt) van een gecertificeerd eindproduct.
Iets dergelijks geldt voor de techniek van thermochemische behandeling; een
verbrandingstechniek (bij een temperatuur rond 1200 0C) waarbij de asbest door toevoeging
van chemicaliën sneller tot ontbinding wordt gebracht. Wel zal bij deze techniek eerst nog een
aantal technische tests succesvol doorlopen moeten worden.
Voor alle thermische technieken geldt dat ze grotere, statische installaties vereisen en relatief
veel energie vragen. Daarmee hebben ze ook een relatief grote potentiële CO2-voetafdruk, al
moet hier wel in meegewogen worden dat de eindproducten vervangers kunnen zijn voor
producten waarvan de reguliere (nieuw-) productie ook CO2-uitstoot met zich meebrengt.
Daardoor is bijvoorbeeld de potentiële CO2-voetafdruk van het recyclen van asbesthoudend
staalschroot klein.
Vanwege omvang en capaciteit van de installaties zal hooguit sprake kunnen zijn van één of
enkele vestiging(en) in Nederland waarheen het asbesthoudend afval getransporteerd moet
worden (extra transport ten opzichte van regionaal storten). Daarnaast vergen de processen
voor recycling van asbesthoudend staalschroot en thermo-chemische behandeling enige
voorbewerking van het afval. Bij dit alles zijn maatregelen noodzakelijk om werknemers,
omwonenden en het milieu te beschermen tegen risico’s van eventueel vrijkomend asbest. Bij
thermische denaturatie ligt dit deels anders. Hierbij is geen voorbewerking nodig, het asbest-
houdende afval gaat, inclusief de verpakking in polytheen zakken, linea recta in de oven.
Mechanisch
Ook de mechano-chemische techniek is redelijk rijp. Bij deze techniek wordt kleingemaakt
asbestafval door hoge-energiemolens geleid waarin stalen kogels en zand meedraaien. In de
botsingen van rotors, kogels, zand en afval ontstaan lokaal ‘hot spots’ met zeer hoge
temperaturen (boven 1000 0C) en treden combinaties op van mechanische, thermische en
chemische processen die de asbestvezels vernietigen en daarmee onschadelijk maken. De
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
18
laatste tests van deze techniek op industriële schaal moeten nog plaatsvinden. Tevens speelt
hier nog een aantal praktische zaken alvorens de Nederlandse markt betreden kan worden.
Aan de andere kant geldt dat de techniek meer mobiel en flexibel inzetbaar en minder
kapitaalintensief is dan sommige andere technieken. Hierdoor zou van een relatief snelle
toetreding tot de markt sprake kunnen zijn.
De mechano-chemische verwerkingstechniek gebruikt minder energie en heeft een relatief
bescheiden potentiële CO2-voetafdruk. Het schaalbare en mobiele karakter van de installatie
kan maken dat ze dicht bij plaatsen waar het asbesthoudend afval ontstaat of bijvoorbeeld op
regionale stortplaatsen geplaatst kan worden. Dat leidt mogelijk tot minder transport van
asbesthoudend afval. Wel is voorbewerking van dat afval nodig (drogen en verkleinen) en
ontstaat een heel fijn stof als eindproduct, wat de nodige beschermingsmaatregelen zal vergen.
Biologisch
Biologische technieken – die erop gericht zijn om de natuurlijke afbraak van asbestvezels door
bacteriën of schimmels te versnellen – zijn op dit moment nog onvoldoende uitontwikkeld.
Zodra deze technieken ook maar enigszins beheerst kunnen worden, is echter per direct een
positief verdienmodel te verwachten voor de in situ behandeling van met asbest verontreinigde
grond, met minimale marktdrempels. Energieverbruik en potentiële CO2-voetafdruk van
biologische technieken zijn minimaal. Wel zal de veiligheid van het werken met schimmels,
bacteriën en eventuele additieven geborgd moeten zijn.
Chemisch
Historisch gezien heeft de chemische asbestverwerking een matige staat van dienst. Al langer
is bekend dat asbestvezels met sterke zuren of basen vernietigd kunnen worden. Pogingen om
dit principe grootschalig toe te passen liepen tot op heden meestal dood op problemen met het
in de hand houden van de risico’s van het chemische proces en de noodzaak om het
eindproduct te neutraliseren alvorens het te kunnen hergebruiken. Niettemin zijn ook op dit
gebied nieuwe initiatieven waarneembaar, mede ingegeven door een belang om industrieel
afvalzuur nuttig te gebruiken. Vooralsnog is er echter een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid technische
en niet-technische kwesties die het hoofd geboden moeten worden, inclusief een aantal die
verband houden met duurzaamheidsaspecten.
Andere beoordeelde technieken verkeren nog in een embryonaal stadium, staan na minder
succesvolle pilot studies stil in hun ontwikkeling, of verkeren in een vroeg stadium van
opschaling.
Toepassingsgebieden
Nadere beschouwing van toepassingsgebieden laat zien dat een aantal van de technieken hun
eigen deelmarkten of niches hebben waarin ze asbesthoudend afval het meest effectief en
rendabel kunnen verwerken:
– recyclen van asbesthoudend metaalschroot in smeltovens: asbesthoudend ijzer- en
staalschroot;
– thermische denaturatie: een constante en homogene stroom asbestcement golfplaten,
gevelplaten en buizen;
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
19
– thermo-chemische behandeling: asbesthoudend afval of een mengsel van asbesthoudend
en hoogenergetisch afval (sorteer residuen, te gebruiken als alternatieve brandstoffen voor
het verwerkingsproces);
– mechano-chemische behandeling: (gezien de meer schaalbare en flexibel inzetbare
techniek) meer lokale homogene stromen asbestcement in wisselende hoeveelheden;
– biologische behandeling van asbestvervuilde grond: met asbestvezels (chrysotiel)
vervuilde grond, in situ.
Kees Le Blansch, Ko den Boeft, Jan Tempelman
Utrecht / Apeldoorn / Deventer
18 juni 2018
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
21
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and goal of this assessment
It is the Dutch government’s ambition to make the Netherlands a circular economy by
205o. As part of this ambition, the government has announced that it will investigate in
which way, by means of existing or promising new treatment techniques, asbestos fibres
can be rendered harmless, thus making it possible to reuse the cleaned-up (construction)
material.9 Up till now, controlled landfill of asbestos (containing) waste is standard
practice. This practice is deemed unsustainable, even more so in the light of the upcoming
ban on asbestos cement roofings,10 which will lead to a new massive stream of asbestos
waste. The announced investigation project should enable the authorities to direct
innovations in asbestos waste treatment towards the most sustainable options at hand, and
to do so in a well-considered way that can be accounted for in the public arena.11
It is clear that decisions to change the current way of dealing with asbestos cannot be
taken light-heartedly. It is a well-recognized fact that asbestos is a highly carcinogenic
fibre. Exposure to asbestos must be avoided. The best way to pre-empt the possibility of
exposure, better than isolation, is to completely destroy the asbestos’ fibrous structure.
Without doing that, the risks of being exposed to asbestos will continue to be passed on to
future generations.
However, the extra handling of the asbestos that comes with the destruction process itself
or with the altered logistics of getting it to the destruction site, may create new exposure
risks. Before the cleaned material can be reused in any way, it must be established beyond
doubt that destruction techniques are consistently effective and resistant to human error
and ill-will. Other aspects must be taken into account too, like additional chemical or
biological risks that come with these destruction processes, or the possible impact of their
energy-intensity on global warming. The introduction of new ways of dealing with
asbestos waste disturbs present institutional arrangements and their checks and
balances, which only makes sense if a stable and more desirable situation can be
established – which also requires a solid business case and a societal licence to operate.
All in all, there are many aspects to be considered to establish what are the most suitable
options at hand.
9 Nederland circulair in 2050 – Rijksbreed programma circulaire economie. Beleidsnota van het ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu en het ministerie van Economische Zaken, mede namens het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. Den Haag, 2016. 10 See ‘Ontwerpbesluit houdende wijziging van het Asbestverwijderingsbesluit 2005 in verband met het invoeren van een verbod op het voorhanden hebben van asbesthoudend materiaal toegepast als dakbedekking’; to be introduced July 2017. 11 The European Parliament has adopted a resolution to the same effect, in which it “points out that, as regards the management of asbestos waste, measures must also be taken - with the consensus of the populations concerned - to promote and support research into, and technologies using, eco-compatible alternatives, and to secure procedures, such as the inertisation of waste-containing asbestos, to deactivate active asbestos fibres and convert them into materials that do not pose public health risks” (Resolution EU-P7_TA, 2013).
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
22
Following the announcement of this investigation, the Dutch ministry of Infrastructure and
Water Management (ministry of IandW) commissioned an assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques.12 This assessment was carried out in the last two quarters of 2017 and
the first two quarters of 2018. The outcomes of this assessment are presented in this report.
The aim of the assessment project is twofold:
To develop and present an assessment method for asbestos waste treatment
techniques that enables the ministry of IandW to carry out (or have carried out)
assessments that
are integral (i.e. include all relevant aspects to judge the effectiveness and viability
of these techniques),
are of high quality (lead to well-balanced and scientifically-based (or expert-)
judgements) and that
can form the basis of an as transparent as possible assessment process.
And to assess – on the basis on the method described above – all presently known
asbestos waste treatment techniques, and in so doing, identify
which techniques currently (if any) have the highest potential for sustainable practical
application
To highlight the exact meaning of this formulation, the words used in this goal statement
are clarified in the text block below.
‘Assessment’ of
techniques
An assessment of techniques is a process of identifying, quantifying and prioritizing (or
ranking) relevant characteristics of techniques. The goal of this project is to carry out an
assessment, not to do research. What’s meant by this, is that no new data on asbestos
waste treatment are produced, only already existing data are gathered and (re-)
interpreted.
‘Well-balanced
assessment’
This term refers to an assessment in which all relevant aspects are considered and are
weighed against each other. However, in the basis this ‘weighing’ is mainly a political
process. Therefore, it is to be carried out by policy makers, not only by researchers.
Consequently, this assessment project first and foremost provides the elements that are
to be weighed; if and where elements are weighed in the context of this project, this is
done in an open and transparent way.
‘Treatment’ of
asbestos waste
This is the process by which asbestos waste is changed in such a way that it no longer
poses a threat to human health and the environment (and after which possibly
reuseable material remains).
12 Next to this investigation of techniques (the ‘what’), the ministry also commissioned a project to investigate which parties have to cooperate in what way to make collection and reuse of treated asbestos possible (the ‘how’). The results of this project have been reported separately, see: Tauw, 2018.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
23
‘Asbestos waste
material’
(Also: ACM (asbestos
containing material)
or ACW (asbestos
containing waste)
This is waste material consisting of, or containing one or more of the six (widely used)
types of asbestos.13 Asbestos waste material can range from pure asbestos to waste that
is slightly polluted with asbestos. For the purpose of this study the prime focus lies on
the higher volumes of asbestos containing waste material (and higher levels of asbestos
pollution), most of all asbestos cement, asbestos containing metal scrap (mainly steel)
and asbestos contaminated soil.
‘Techniques’ The word ‘techniques’ refers to material methods (in a more or less developed stage) for
effecting a process or result. Techniques can be either young and untested (in statu
nascendi), tested in a pilot project or mature and tested in full operation on industrial
scale.
‘If any’ This study acknowledges the possibility that none of the assessed techniques harbours a
potential or a promise to a level that justifies practical application or calls for further
development (as compared to the reference scenario: controlled landfill).
1.2 Methodology of the study
This assessment project has chosen as its basis the OVAM14 study ‘State of the art: asbestos
– possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and opportunities’15 (OVAM (a),
2016)16. This was done because the study provided an authoritative and state-of-the-art
overview and assessment of available techniques for asbestos waste treatment for
application in Flanders at the time the present study was commissioned. The study was
carried out from the same overall perspective as that of the present assessment project:
‘sustainable land use, recycling and closing material cycles’ (OVAM (a), 2016,).
Building on this basis, a three step approach was adopted.
1. First, an international expert Sounding Board meeting was held. The aim of this
Sounding Board meeting was to bring about a critical discussion of the OVAM report
and to identify possible needs for updates and completion of the report’s findings, as
well as possible additional assessment parameters. The general conclusion of the
discussions was that the OVAM report does indeed offer a solid starting point for an
assessment of asbestos waste treatment techniques, but that several critical adjustments
and supplements need to be made:
landfill as a reference scenario needs full elaboration;
a number of upcoming techniques must be included;
a more critical approach to the quality of information and sources is required;
the factor time for technology development and application (short, medium and
long term) must be included;
some assessment parameters used in the OVAM report need more elaboration,
some need a clear definition and some new parameters must be added.
13 The term ‘asbestos’ is used for six minerals — chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos and actinolite asbestos — belonging to the serpentine (chrysotile) and amphibole families (the others). 14 OVAM is the Flemish Public Waste Company (‘Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij’). 15 The OVAM report can be found at: http://www.ovam.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/State%20of%20the%20art%20asbestos%20waste%20treatement.pdf 16 The study was commissioned by OVAM and was carried out in cooperation with Ecorem nv and ABO Group nv.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
24
The full report of the Sounding Board meeting is included as part 1 in the Appendix
report. Annex 2 to this report provides the list of participants to the Sounding Board’s
meeting.
2. Following up on the conclusions of the meeting of the Sounding Board, the project team
developed its own proposal for assessment parameters and carried out additional data
collection. The assessment parameters were further refined in confrontation with the
reinterpreted existing data and the newly acquired and interpreted data.
The actual data gathering and (re)interpretation activities that were carried out in this
phase, were threefold:
Firstly, the data included in the OVAM report, as well as the sources from which
they were derived, were reinterpreted with the help of the newly developed or
refined assessment parameters.
Secondly, a literature search was carried out in order to include additional and
more recent data. This search provided important additional insights into publicly
available scientific data. The search also made clear, however, that part of the
expertise in this field is not publicly available for reasons of protecting intellectual
property rights and market competition considerations. Also, an important part of
relevant expertise is of a different, often more practical nature than the type of
expertise that finds its way into scientific publications. Therefore, a third course of
action was adopted as well.
This third course of action consisted of interviews with experts involved in the –
often commercial – development of techniques. For practical and workload
reasons, the interviews were restricted to initiatives with a Dutch connection. In
these interviews the experts were invited to disclose any information they were
willing to share. As it turned out, excellent cooperation was obtained from relevant
experts from all initiatives known to the project team.
Annex 2 to this report provides the list of experts that were interviewed. The full
(approved) reports of the interviews are included in part 2 of the Appendix report.
3. Finally, the first step of the assessment process was carried out, by pooling all available
information on the different techniques and by carrying out an analysis of this
information based on different established assessment parameters. These analyses were
documented in so-called ‘Analysis sheets’. For optimal transparency, these analysis
sheets are included in Annex 1 to this report.
In order to be as clear as possible about the quality of the sources, in the descriptions a
distinction is made between factual and ‘claimed’ properties and aspects of a technique.
‘Claims’ may well be accurate, but are by nature less - independently – underpinned and
therefore run the risk of being biased by interests. The more a statement is scientifically
underpinned, made public in peer-reviewed journals and confirmed in different
publications, the more it is considered to be factual. Subsequently, the more the
statements about properties and aspects of a technique are ‘factual’, the more they are
considered to be conclusive data, that prove for example the readiness of a technique
and that can indicate that operations and risks are under control.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
25
The first results of this analysis were presented (in writing) to the members of the
Sounding Board for a critical appraisal. A summary of the comments received during
this round are included as part 3 of the Appendix report, as well as responses of the
project team about the way these comments have subsequently been handled.
In between the different stages and at the end of this project, an Advisory Commission has
overseen and critically reflected on the adopted approach and the resulting analyses. The
members of this Advisory Commission are listed in Annex 2 to this report.
1.3 About this report
In order to provide readers an easy access to the findings, the following chapters of this
report contain a concise description of the assessment project results. Jargon is avoided as
much as possible. In case the use of technical terms is necessary, they are explained.
Further details and underpinning can be found in the annexes and the Appendix report.
For those readers who look for specific elements of the assessment project report, now
follows a description of its structure.
The report starts in the next chapter (chapter 2) with a general description and
classification of the different asbestos waste treatment techniques. Techniques are
described, ordered by the typically different mechanisms on which their operation is based.
Also new developments within the different types of technologies are indicated. The
classification of techniques will form the basis of detailed analytical descriptions by means
of the assessment parameters in later chapters – but may also serve as an introduction into
the world of techniques for rendering asbestos harmless.
The assessment parameters are presented in chapter 3. The basic principles underlying
the choice of parameters are briefly discussed. The different types of basic parameters are
named, described and part of them also operationalised. An explanation is given how,
based on these parameters, four overarching assessment parameters are established (i.e.
technology readiness level, distance to market, sustainability aspects, area of application).
With all of this, the first element of the goal of the study is delivered: the assessment
method.
Chapters 4 to 8 contain the actual assessment of the different techniques. Based on the
classification of different technical approaches as described in chapter 2, and employing the
assessment parameters that were described in chapter 3, an assessment of all techniques is
presented (as far as data are available), resulting in conclusions on where and how the
developments of the different techniques stand.
In chapter 9 the results of the assessment of the different techniques are presented next
to one another. Specific technological characteristics are highlighted. Differences between
techniques as to their stage of development, their relative strengths and their weaknesses
are pointed out. With all of this, the second element of the goal of the study is delivered: the
assessment itself and its conclusions.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
26
Chapter 10 summarises the conclusions that follow from the assessment exercise.
Conclusions concern both the assessment method that was developed and the outcome of
the assessment.
Annex 1 to this report contains the analysis sheets of assessed types of techniques. Annex
2 provides an overview of all persons consulted or interviewed. Annex 3 contains the list
of references.
The Appendix report contains:
– The report of the meeting of the Sounding Board, November 2017
– The reports of the interviews held with experts
– The report of the review of the final assessment report by members of the Sounding
Board
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
27
2. Asbestos waste treatment techniques: basic mechanisms
2.1 Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of the basic types of techniques for the treatment of asbestos
waste, i.e. ways in which asbestos containing material (ACM) can be changed in such a way
that it no longer poses a threat to human health and the environment and that the
remaining product can be reused in one way or another.
There are different techniques that aim to reach such an effect. These techniques can be
classified to their underlying mechanisms. They are:
– Thermal treatment
– Chemical treatment
– Mechanical treatment
– Biological treatment
Overviews of these techniques can be found in several publications. The OVAM report
(OVAM (a), 2016) is an important example of such a publication, that is also used as the
basis for the overview presented in this chapter. Other recent overview publications have
provided additional information (LLW Repository Ltd, 2016; Spasiano and Pirozzi, 2017).
These publications use similar types of classification of techniques as the one presented
here, though sometimes with different terminology. In addition to this, insights are added
from recent publications that describe new findings or tests and from interviews that were
held that point at further developments.
It should be noted that to some extent the classification that is used here, is arbitrary. There
are several actual techniques in which the underlying mechanisms blend in together, like
when chemicals are added in order to speed up a thermal process or when micro-organisms
are used to produce acids that break down the asbestos. In many cases the final destruction
of the asbestos fibres is the combined result of thermal, chemical and mechanical forces.
Nevertheless, in this report the techniques are classified according to their dominant
mechanism and without using a – just as arbitrary – separate category of ‘combined or
mixed techniques’.
The following paragraphs describe the separate types of techniques, the underlying
treatment mechanisms and the different variants in which they are developed and
employed. For ‘benchmark’ purposes, these descriptions are preceded by a description of
the reference scenario: landfill.
2.2 Landfill (and stabilisation)
Landfill and stabilisation are not actual treatments of asbestos as such, since they do not
alter its fibre structure and do not render it intrinsically safe for man and environment.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
28
The landfill technique is merely presented here for reference purposes and because it has
generally been considered as a safe and appropriate waste management strategy.17
The basic landfill ‘technique’ consists of accepting properly bagged ACW (in accordance
with applicable certification schemes), having it ‘laid down’ in landfill sites and covering it
with a layer of soil or comparable material. After the landfill site had been filled completely,
the resulting – if so desired, hilly – landscape can be used for a number of specified
purposes.18 When left untouched, the dumped asbestos does not present any risk. The waste
is stable and does not leach nor produces gases. The landfill site will require everlasting
management and protection from risks deriving from deterioration or interference (for
which funds are built up).
Before landfill, additional stabilisation measures can be taken to reduce risks of release of
fibres. An example can be found in Flanders, where friable asbestos must be encapsulated
in concrete blocks before landfill (OVAM (b), 2016).
2.3 Thermal treatment
A well-known and often used technique for the destruction of asbestos fibres basically
consists of heating ACM to high temperatures for sufficiently long time. At certain (higher)
temperatures asbestos fibres are unstable and naturally decompose (see textbox). Several
underlying mechanisms of thermal decomposition are at play here. With increasing
temperatures overall evaporation of adsorbed water, dehydratation and crystallization take
place (Spasiano and Pirozzi, 2017). This conversion process goes through different phases,
in which different intermediate mineralogical stages are passed (Kusiorowski et al., 2012).
At extreme temperatures (up to 1600 0C or even
2000 0C) all (mineral) waste – including asbestos – is
converted into a stable and homogeneous (silicate) glass.
This latter process is called ‘vitrification’.
Other components of the ACW, like the bags in which it
is packed or the cement matrix of the asbestos cement
composite, also decompose at these temperatures (the
cement is mainly decomposed into SiO2 and CaO, which
are deemed harmless substances).
A number of thermal treatment techniques –most of which are already known for some
time – can be distinguished:
– Vitrification: the before-mentioned technique that transforms substances into glass (by
plasma gun (Heberlein and Murphy, 2008), conventional ovens or electric furnace
(Geomelt vitrification process (Finucane et al., 2008)).
17 In the Netherlands the necessary legal provisions are in place that make it possible to quickly implement a landfill ban on asbestos cement. This decision will however only come into effect when proper asbestos waste treatment techniques are available and meet with certain capacity requirements (see footnote 28). 18 Examples are known where these landscapes are used for sports and leisure activities and for the placement of specific types of buildings.
Decomposition temperatures of
asbestos types
(source: Gomez et al., 2009)
– Tdecomposition (chrysotile) = 450-700°C
– Tdecomposition (crocidolite) = 400-600°C
– Tdecomposition (tremolite) = 600 - 850°C
– Tdecomposition (amosite) = 600-800°C
– Tdecomposition (anthophylite) = 620 - 960°C
– Tdecomposition (actinolite) = 950 - 1040°C
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
29
– Ceramitization: a technique in which ACM is mixed with clay and brought at high
temperature, at which the material is converted into ceramic products.
– Thermo-chemical treatment: a chemically catalysed thermal degradation process;
accelerated remineralisation process at lower decomposition temperatures by using a
fluxing agent (Downey and Timmons, 2005).
– Thermal denaturation: ACM is heated in tunnel kilns or furnaces for a longer time until
all asbestos has decomposed; afterward the end-product is grinded into powder.
– Microwave heating: thermal denaturation by means of microwave heating.
– Treatment of asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces: a technique that
reclaims steel from asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces. As an
intended side effect asbestos is decomposed; its remains are part of the slags.
Also, scientific publications hint at some thermal techniques in early stages of
development. These include:
– SHS (self-propagating high temperature synthesis); a thermal method exploiting the
highly exothermic and fast self-propagating high-temperature reaction between Fe2O3
and magnesium powder. Experiments with mixtures of different ACW and different
amounts of reagents (25 to 50 weight % for friable asbestos and 40 to 50 weight % for
asbestos cement) were reported (Gaggero et al., 2016).
– Laser induced rapid melting: the use of pulse CO2 laser irradiation for melting and
decomposing of asbestos containing slate (Fujishige et al., 2014)
2.4 Chemical treatment
Asbestos fibres can be decomposed by exposing the fibres to chemicals that destroy the
crystalline fibre structure. Most of these reactions are based on dehydration. Chemical
decomposition mechanisms can be divided into different categories (Spasiano and Pirozzi,
2017):
– Acid decomposition: Chrysotile will decompose in a strong acidic environment (such as
HCl, H2SO4 , H3PO4 and HNO3).
– Asbestos decomposition using weak acids and/or combined with capturing CO2: Some
processes describe the use of weak acids such as oxalic acid (Turci et al., 2010) or waste
acids from agro industries (such as whey from a cheese factory (Alimenta, 2017)). All
serpentine (chrysotile) and related minerals, such as olivine (alkaline solid wastes), are
able to capture CO2 by forming carbonates (carbonation), which is at natural conditions
a slow process (Pan et al., 2012).
– Alkaline destruction: Alkaline destruction of asbestos (Cioska et al., 2006) is possible at
high temperature (200-500 0C) and elevated pressure.
– Specific decomposition of amphibole asbestos using iron capturing chelates: For
destruction of the amphibole fibres chelating additives as citric acid, oxalic acid or
EDTA are needed. Besides driving the acid reactions, oxalic acid and citric acid are also
chelate forming agents, which is a necessary ingredient to leach out iron from the
amphibole structure. Iron is a major element in the amphibole asbestos types crocidolite
and amosite.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
30
2.5 Mechanical treatment
Asbestos fibres can also be broken down by mechanical treatment. The mechanical
treatment techniques that are effective, use advanced types of milling (high energy milling
(Baláz et al., 2006; Baláz, 2008)). In this process no heat or chemicals are added. All
inserted energy is of a kinetic nature, therefore it is categorised as ‘mechanical treatment’.
The mechanism by which the fibres are broken down, however, consist of the chemical and
physic-chemical transformations of substances in all the aggregation states produced by the
effect of mechanical energy (Colangelo et al., 2011; Spasiano and Pirozzi, 2017). Therefore,
this type of treatment is often referred to as ‘mechano-chemical’. Plescia (Plescia et al.,
2003) describe the phenomenon that mechano-chemical treatment of crystalline
substances can lead (on micro scale) to an extremely high degree of amorphisation and
phase change, generally seen in thermal reactions exceeding 1.000 0C (whereas mechano-
chemical processes generally (on macro scale) do not exceed 160–180 0C).
Effective mechano-chemical treatment of ACW results in ultra-fine non-carcinogenic
amorphous powders.
2.6 Biological treatment
Asbestos fibres exposed to fungi (and/or lichens and bacteria) and/or other natural
occurring environments such as peat soil (low pH) will be chemically affected. This
phenomenon was described first in 2003 by Torino University in Italy, followed by later
publications (Daghino et al., 2009). Certain types of natural occurring fungi were isolated,
which were found on serpentine rock formations. These types of fungi grow best on the
‘diet’ as provided by these minerals combined with the local environment (temperature,
humidity et cetera).
The underlying mechanism of the treatment is that these types of fungi produce organic
acids and/or chelates which can leach out magnesium (from chrysotile) whereas other
fungi are able to leach out iron from crocidolite and amosite. If this reaction is completed,
the typical chemical and crystalline structure of asbestos should be decomposed in such a
way that the typical carcinogenic properties of the asbestos fibres have disappeared (the
effectiveness of this decomposition process is still being researched). In nature such a
process will take decades, but if optimum conditions are created (concentration of fungi,
nutrient medium, temperature, humidity, available fibre surface et cetera) this process can
be speeded up considerably. The reaction kinetics in this process are of significant
importance: if the available fibre surface decreases, or the fibre is embedded in a cement
matrix, the reaction will slow down exponentially. Therefore the completeness of the
asbestos decomposition must be controlled carefully, using state of the art analytical
techniques such as micro Raman spectroscopy (Turci et al., 2010).
Bacterial weathering of asbestos in natural occurring sources (India, Rajasthan mines) is
described by Bhattacharya (Bhattacharya et al., 2015).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
31
A combined process for the biochemical denaturation of asbestos containing materials,
using fungi as well as bacteria, is described by Roveri in a U.S. Patent document (Roveri et
al., 2017).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
33
3. The assessment parameters
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The development of the assessment parameters
The assessment parameters have been developed from two directions. The one direction
built upon the methodology of the OVAM study (OVAM (a), 2016). In this OVAM study a
set of parameters was developed to describe and analyse the different treatment
techniques. Next, the researchers used quantified representations of these parameters in
multi-criteria analyses in order to identify the techniques with the best potential on
different aspects.
Whereas the parameters distinguished and developed by OVAM proved to be quite helpful,
the multi-criteria analyses approach of OVAM was hard to combine with the principles of
the present study as described on page 22 of this report, and particularly the principle that
the final weighing of parameters is mainly a political process, to be carried out by policy
makers.
Consequently, the second direction worked the other way around and started with elements
that (Dutch) public policy makers require for carrying out the final weighing. Four elements
have been postulated that provide meaningful weighing aspects, largely of a qualitative
nature:
– ‘Technology readiness level’: the level of technological maturity (as defined by NASA
and the EU), expressed on a scale from 1 to 9.
– ‘Distance to market’: a term referring to the mostly non-technological aspects that
determine whether a technology can reasonably be expected to be licensable,
marketable and profitable.
– ‘Sustainability aspects’: a parameter that refers – as a kind of collective term – to the
different characteristics of a technique with an impact on risks, aspects of a circular
economy and other health and environment issues.
– ‘Area of application’: i.e. the types of ACW for which a particular technique is most
applicable or profitable.
The resulting assessment method is a combination of the work from both directions. The
four elements mentioned above (named ‘overarching parameters’) have been logically
connected to the ‘improved’ OVAM criteria. In that way, a description of all aspects of a
technique (using all parameters that are considered relevant) forms the basis for clear and
well-documented statements on four well-understandable and highly relevant aspects that
are to be weighed (by policy makers).
3.1.2 Working from the OVAM parameters
The OVAM parameters are intended to help obtain a full description and appraisal of the
techniques. For an impression of the OVAM parameters, see the textbox on page 34.
Further discussion and elaboration of these parameters (see also the report of the Sounding
Board meeting in part 1 of the Appendix report) has led to a number of remarks on the
OVAM parameters, and requirements for the parameters to be developed in this study.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
34
These include:
– Some parameters must be clarified (e.g. ‘end-product’), some must be added (e.g. public
acceptance, the factor process time and scale/mobility of the installation), some require
elaboration (e.g. safety, end-product, control and costs).
– The weight and impact of some parameters are heavily dependent on the regulation and
standard setting that is actually in place.
– The final weighing process at the same time includes numerical assessments, expert
judgements and political considerations. The parameters must feed these judgements in
a transparent way.
Textbox: OVAM’s assessment matrix
The assessment matrix of the OVAM study analyses techniques on the basis of the following parameters, both
in a qualitative and a quantitative way (see p. 122 and further):
– Acceptance criteria
– End-product
End-product
Applicability
Standardized
– Process
Supply product
Batch/continuous
Buffer
Separation
Size-reduction/Crushing
Laborious/automated
Control
Installation
– Energetic
Primary energy
Additives
Water consumption
Others
– Emissions
Water
Air
Solid
Others
– Safety aspects
– Financial
Cost process
Cost business model
– State of the art
Proven/failed
Patented
Optimization
Alternative
3.1.3 Aiming at the elements to be weighed
As mentioned before, four overarching parameters are distinguished. The ‘content’ of these
parameters is derived from underlying (basic) parameters and comes as close as possible to
serving – in an objective way – the purpose of the assessment, that is, to identify which
techniques have the highest potential for sustainable practical application.
These four overall parameters are not fully determined by only the strictly technical aspects
of a given technique. In the descriptions on the previous page, it was already indicated that
‘distance to market’ is mostly determined by non-technological aspects. These aspects –
like costs, prices, market acceptance, public acceptance – determine whether a technology
can reasonably be expected to be licensable, marketable and profitable. Thus, non-technical
aspects must be included in the assessment, albeit in a different, more qualitative fashion
than the technical aspects, that can often be quantified.
Therefore a distinction is made between three types of basic parameters:
1. technical parameters, referring to characteristics of a largely natural scientific and
quantifiable nature. These parameters are more or less by definition objective;
2. non-technical parameters of a reasonably objectifiable nature, as they are largely
determined by technical characteristics of the techniques; and
3. non-technical parameters of a hardly objectifiable nature, which are mainly
determined by non-technical (regulatory, economical, societal or other) factors.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
35
Together, the three sets of basic parameters and the four overall assessment parameters
constitute the assessment method that is proposed here. In the following paragraphs they
are first described as separate building blocks and later presented as a coherent structure.
However, the explanation – or even justification – of the inclusion of parameters in the
total structure works the other way around, and is in fact teleological (starting from the end
and reasoning back): all basic parameters are, either directly or indirectly, functional for
the establishment of the overall parameters.
In the next paragraphs the three types of parameters and the four overall parameters are
described and operationalised.
3.2 Technical parameters
The first set of parameters is of a largely natural scientific and quantifiable nature. Table 1
names the parameters, describes them and indicates the way they are operationalised,
either in exact terms, on a scale or in terms of different options.
Table 1. Technical parameters
Parameter Description / clarification Way of quantification (or
qualitative description)
Process time Duration of the process to effect ‘full destruction of
asbestos fibres’19 (excl. pre-processing time)20
Scale: mins / hrs / days /
months / years / centuries
Process
temperature
Temperature at which the destruction process
takes place
0C
Energy
requirements
Amount of energy required per ton of treated ACM
(Note: the asbestos weight percentage can vary
widely between different waste streams. So does
their composition. The energy requirements of
different techniques (applied at different types of
waste streams) can therefore not easily be
compared on the basis of one digital parameter.
This will be explained / discussed with the
different techniques.)
kWh/ton
Input
requirements /
acceptance criteria
Types of ACM that can (only) be treated with the
technique
Options: chrysotile / ‘pure,
friable’ asbestos / asbestos
cement/ asbestos containing
scrap metal / asbestos containing
soil / all ACM / other (to be
explained)
19 Unless stated otherwise, ‘full destruction of asbestos fibres’ is meant to refer to asbestos levels below detection level with all available detection techniques. 20 Not in all techniques pre-processing and process time can be distinguished. Where this is the case, this will be mentioned.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
36
Parameter Description / clarification Way of quantification (or
qualitative description)
Pre-processing
(energy)
requirements
Necessary preparation in order to make the ACM
suitable for treatment, and the amount of energy
this requires (as compared to the pre-processing
that is required in the landfill reference scenario
(i.e. double bagging)).
Options: pre-separated / reduced
in size / grinded / milled / dried
/ none / other; plus kWh/ton
Additives
(chemicals or
other)
Other material ingredients added to the asbestos
treatment process
Options: reactive chemicals /
inert substances / other
Fibre destruction Type/mechanism and level of fibre destruction
effected by the technique
(Clarification: some reactions have a clear
turning point (e.g. when reaching the
decomposition temperature). Others slow down
when asbestos or reagent concentrations decrease
(some chemical and biological processes), hence
the asymptotical decay of the reaction rate.)
Options: full destruction /
asymptotical decay of reaction
rate / none / other
Mass / volume
reduction
Extent to which the technique reduces (or
increases) mass or volume of waste streams
(Clarification: mass / volume reduction can be of
importance for the amount of space required for
landfill, energy required for transport, et
cetera).21
%
Reusability of end-
product
Way in which the end-product can be reused Options: None22 / inert filler /
building material (civil
engineering) / active substance
(cement, clay) / clean soil / other
Installation type /
size
Typical characteristics of the treatment installation
following from its technical properties
Options: On site / mobile /
temporary / fixed medium scale
/ fixed large scale / other
Installation
capacity
Amount of ACM the installation can typically treat
on yearly basis (= 300 business days)
Scale: <1.000 / 1.000 – 10.000 /
10.000 – 100.000 / > 100.000
tons/year
Proven technique The extent to which the technique is developed and
has been proven in practice
Options: lab scale / pilot trials /
upscaled / fully operational
Of course, several of these parameters are interdependent (though not fully determined by
one another).
– Process time and temperature are important factors in process energy requirements.
21 Note: this parameter has been taken over from the OVAM parameters. However, in the Netherlands it proves to be hardly relevant whether treated waste requires less space for landfill. Most developers of asbestos waste treatment techniques build their business cases on higher gate fees than the present gate fee for landfill. However, according to LAP3 a landfill ban for asbestos can only come into place if there is a market for end-products of the asbestos treatment (and thus the end-product cannot be dumped). 22 Strictly speaking this option disqualifies a technique, given the requirements of LAP 3 (see footnote 21).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
37
– The nature of the process, but also the type, size and capacity of the installation largely
determine the types, forms and quantities of asbestos waste that can be recycled, and
therewith the acceptance criteria and input requirements.
– These input requirements in turn determine the required pre-processing.
– The level of fibre destruction also determines the reusability of the end-product.
– The more data are available about the different technical parameters, the more probable
it is that a technique can be considered as ‘proven’.
The double-sided arrow in figure 1 indicates these interdependencies.
Figure 1. Technical parameters
3.3 Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
The second set of parameters is non-technical by nature. The parameters can however be
described in more or less objective terms, given their strong relation to the technical
aspects of the treatment technique (see table 2). Thus, again there are strong
interdependencies with the technical parameters that were described in the previous
paragraph. However, given the fundamental non-technical nature of this second set of
parameters, several of these parameters cannot be uniformly quantified and must be
described in a qualitative way.
Table 2. Non-technical parameters, reasonably objectifiable
Parameter Description / clarification Way of quantification (or
qualitative description)
Logistical aspects Logistical consequences of applying the technique,
e.g. in terms of ACM transportation to installation,
buffering and storage requirements, plant logistics
including effects of packaging and pre-processing
(as compared to the logistical consequences of the
reference scenario: landfill (i.e. double bagging
and transport)).
Qualitative
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
38
Parameter Description / clarification Way of quantification (or
qualitative description)
Quality Assurance
(QA) aspects
Required amount of fine-tuning and process
control; number of process parameters which had
to be controlled (‘less is better’); robustness;
sensitivity to process disturbances; intrinsic safety
of process; influence of human factor; employees
working under ‘asbestos conditions’
Qualitative
Risk aspects (in
relation to trans-
port, occupational
H&S, for residents
and environment,
of end-product)
Risks characteristics, (possible) exposure and
emission levels in relation to:
– transport (see also logistical parameter),
– occupational health and safety (see also QA
aspects),
– risks for residents (local surroundings) and
environment (idem),
– risks of end-product (see also technical end-
product parameter).
– risks of (other) process waste
Qualitative
Energy balance
with replacement
product
Comparison / offset of energy use of on the one
hand the asbestos treatment process to produce
reusable end-product, and on the other hand the
regular production process to obtain the product
that is to be replaced.
Qualitative
Costs in relation to
energy use
Costs of energy use per ton of treated ACM (see
also technical energy requirements parameter).
Costs (in actual market prices)
in €/ton
and/or (scale): < € 10/ton; € 10
– 100/ton; € 100 – 200/ton; €
200 – 500/ton; > € 500/ton
Installation
investments
(Claimed) Investment costs of installation (see also
(technical) installation type / size parameter (table
1))
(Claimed) investments in €
and/or scale: < 1 million € 1
million – 20 million; > € 20
million
(Market) value of
end-product
(Claimed) Price or capitalized value of the end-
product of the treatment of ACM, or avoided costs
of dealing with asbestos contamination in another
way (e.g. avoided landfill costs; avoided costs of
soil excavation)
(Claimed) value in €/ton
and/or (options): avoided soil
decontamination costs /
< € 10/ton / > € 10/ton
Other costs Any other costs that are relevant and associated to
the technique in question (e.g. labour costs, added
material costs, maintenance costs, site protection
costs)
Qualitative
The large extent to which these non-technical parameters are determined by the previously
described technical parameters, is illustrated by the big arrow in figure 2. Examples of such
interdependencies are:
– the impact of the energy requirements of the treatment itself and of the pre-processing
on the energy costs of the process;
– the impact of pre-processing requirements on the logistical aspects of the process;
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
39
– the impact of the type and reusability of the end-product on its (market) value;
– the impact of size and type of installation on the installation’s investment costs;
– the impact of the level of fibre destruction on the risks from the end-product;
– the impact of the logistical and the quality assurance aspects on the level of risks in
relation to transport, occupational health and safety, risks for residents and the
environment, and risks from other waste (also depending on the type of installation).
Again, the level of interdependency between these parameters is not such that they fully
determine one another. For example: the energy costs of a process are not a direct
consequence of its energy use, but also of the choice for the type of energy that is used
(fossil fuels, solar or wind power) and of the market price of this type of energy.
Figure 2 represents these parameters and their interdependencies.
Figure 2. Technical and non-technical, reasonably objectifiable parameters
3.4 Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
The third set of parameters is non-technical and can hardly or not be described in objective
terms (see table 3). They are to a large extent determined by non-technical (regulatory,
economical, societal) factors. Hence the heavy reliance on qualitative description.
Nevertheless, also these parameters are to a certain extent influenced by technical and
other non-technical parameters.
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
40
Table 3. Non-technical parameters, hardly objectifiable
Parameter Description / clarification Way of quantification (or
qualitative description)
Financial risks and
securities;
business case
The way in which the overall risks and
opportunities, costs and benefits of the asbestos
waste treatment constitute an earnings model and
bolster investor confidence
Qualitative
Public and
administrative
acceptance
The societal ‘licence to operate’; the extent to
which an asbestos waste treatment installation is
passively or actively accepted by its societal and
administrative environment
Qualitative
Potential CO2
footprint
An indication of the potential (equivalent) amount
of CO2/ton emitted as a possible consequence of
(the energy use of) this particular technique of
asbestos treatment, including the energy balance
with the replacement end-product. (Whether the
potential footprint is actually realised, depends
for instance on the chosen energy source (e.g.
grey or green)).
Options: Small / medium /large
/ very large
(For the purpose of this study it
would take too far to actually
calculate the potential CO2
footprint; therefore a rough
scale is used, built on more
concrete and precise basic
parameters)
Actual market
prices
Actual price for which the asbestos waste
treatment is on offer at the market place
Actual price in €/ton
Again, the technical and other non-technical parameters can have their effects on these
non-technical, hardly objectifiable parameters. Examples of these interdependencies are:
– the impact of the different costs of the process on the actual market prices for the
treatment;
– the impact of the (perception of) QA aspects and of the different risks on public and
administrative acceptance;
– the impact of all of these parameters on the financial risks and securities and on the
overall business case;
– the impact of the energy use of the process and of the energy balance with replacement
products on the potential CO2 footprint.
Figure 3 provides the overview of the complete set of basic parameters and their
interdependencies.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
41
Figure 3. Technical and non-technical parameters
3.5 Overall assessment parameters
3.5.1 The overall assessment parameters
As described in paragraph 3.1, four overarching parameters are adopted that provide
meaningful weighing aspects. These parameters summarize the aspects of the techniques
that have previously been described and allow for a transparent appraisal of these
techniques.
3.5.2 Technology readiness level
The first of these four parameters is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL). This concept
was first introduced by NASA to describe technological maturity and has meanwhile gained
widespread use in different fields of innovation (Mihaly, 2017). The TRL is a one-
dimensional ranking method that places a technology’s readiness on a scale from 1 to 9.
The nine levels of technology readiness are shown in the figure 4.
The TRL of a specific asbestos waste treatment technique is determined qualitatively on the
basis of three parameter elements:
1. First of all, the value of the parameter ‘proven technique’; the higher the scale on which
the technique has been proven, the higher the TRL.
2. Secondly, the extent to which conclusive data are available on all technical parameters.
This is in fact a meta-criterion. The more conclusive data are available, the stronger the
underpinning of the ‘proven’ character of the technique, substantiating a higher TRL.
3. Thirdly, the extent to which quality assurance aspects are clear and have been brought
under control. This is an indicator for the extent to which the system can function in
operational use, and therefore for its TRL.
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
42
Figure 4. Technology readiness levels
Figure 5 shows how the overall parameter TRL is based on a selection of the basic
parameters.
Figure 5: Establishment of overall parameter 1: Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
3.5.3 Distance to market
The second overall parameter is coined ‘the distance to market’. This concept refers to the
mostly non-technological aspects that determine whether a technology can reasonably be
expected to be licensable, marketable and profitable.
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Overall parameter 1: Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
43
The ‘distance to market’ of a specific asbestos waste treatment technique is determined
qualitatively on the basis of several parameters:
1. The parameter ‘proven technique’; in the end only proven techniques are marketable.
2. The parameter ‘financial risks and securities / business case’; an operational earning
model and investor confidence is crucial.
3. The parameter ‘public acceptance’, which signals the cooperation that is to be expected
from local and other authorities (‘legal license’) as well as the ‘social licence to operate’
granted by the wider audience.
Figure 6 shows how the overall parameter ‘Distance to market’ is based on a selection of the
basic parameters.
Figure 6: Establishment of overall parameter 2: Distance to market
3.5.4 Sustainability aspects
The third overall parameter concerns the sustainability aspects (which is intended to refer
to all different characteristics of a technique with an impact on risks, aspects of a circular
economy and other health and environment issues).
Several parameters are relevant for these ‘sustainability aspects’. They are: fibre
destruction, reusability of end-product, energy requirements and balance, mass/volume
reduction, potential CO2 footprint, and a number of different risk aspects (in relation to
transport, occupational H&S, residents and environment, end-product and other waste).
Figure 7 shows how the overall parameter ‘Sustainability aspects’ is based on these basic
parameters.
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Overall parameter 2: Distance to market
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
44
Figure 7: Establishment of overall parameter 3: Sustainability aspects
3.5.5 Area of application
The fourth and last overarching parameter concerns the area of application. This parameter
indicates for what types of ACW a particular technique is most applicable or profitable.
For this, the following parameters and questions are relevant:
– Input requirements / acceptance criteria (what types of ACW can be treated by the
technique?)
– Installation type and size (where – central or local? – and how can the ACW be
treated?); and
– Financial risks and securities / business case (what aspects of ACW treatment constitute
a viable earning model?).
Figure 8 shows how the overall parameter ‘Area of application’ is based on these basic
parameters.
Overall parameter 3: Sustainability aspects
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
45
Figure 8: Establishment of overall parameter 4: Area of application
3.6 The assessment model
With these sets of basic parameters and overarching parameters the assessment model is
presented. Figure 9 presents the overall model.
Figure 9 shows that most basic parameters directly feed the four overarching parameters.
Notwithstanding their evident relevance, some basic parameters only feed indirectly into
the overarching parameters. This is because their relevance is in fact expressed via/through
other basic parameters. As can be seen in figure 9, this is the case for:
– Process time and process temperature: their relevance is expressed in the process’s
energy requirement.
– Additives (chemical or other): their relevance is expressed in QA and risks aspects.
– The logistical aspects of the process: their relevance is expressed in the QA and risk
aspects.
– The different costs of the process and the market value of the product; their relevance is
expressed in the financial risks and securities and in the business case, as well as in the
actual market prices.
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Overall parameter 4: Area of application
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
46
Figure 9: Overall assessment model
Based on these basic and overall parameters, in the next chapters the actual assessment of
the different techniques will be performed and described.
Overall parameter 1: Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
Overall parameter 2: Distance to market
Overall parameter 3: Sustainability aspects
Overall parameter 4: Area of application
Non-technical parameters,
reasonably objectifiable
Logistical aspects
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects
Risk aspects in relation to:
• transport
• occupational H&S
• residents and environment
• end-product
• other waste
Energy balance with replacement
product
Costs in relation to energy use
Installation investments
(Market) value of end product
Other costs
Non-technical parameters,
hardly objectifiable
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Public and administrative
acceptance
Potential CO2 footprint
Actual market prices
Technical Parameters
Process time
Process temperature
Energy requirements
Input requirements / acceptance criteria
Pre-processing (energy) requirements
Additives (chemicals or other)
Fibre destruction
Mass / volume reduction
Reusability of end-product
Installation type / size
Installation capacity
Proven technique
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
47
4. Assessment of asbestos waste treatment techniques – reference
4.1 Introduction
For the actual assessment of the different techniques all data from literature and interviews
were gathered and ordered to the basic parameters that were presented in the previous
chapter. The resulting descriptions (in tables that were coined ‘analysis sheets’) are
included in Annex 1 of this report.
These analysis sheets in turn formed the basis for an assessment of the techniques where
use was made of the four overarching parameters. In this and the following chapters the
outcomes of these assessments are presented. Every chapter addresses a specific class of
techniques (as they were distinguished in chapter 2 of this report), starting – in the present
chapter – with landfill as the reference.
In case within the different classes there are more than one specific technology, they are
discussed separately within the chapters and paragraphs themselves.
4.2 Assessment of the reference scenario: ACW landfill
As was already mentioned in paragraph 2.2, ACW landfill is only included for reference and
benchmark purposes. The root cause of this study – the drives to make the Netherlands a
circular economy by 2050 and to prevent risks from being passed on to future generations
– render ACW landfill an unwanted option.
4.3 Technology readiness level ACW landfill
ACW landfill clearly is a fully proven ‘technique’. It has been practiced for several decades
in the Netherlands. The quality assurance aspects are under control, although there may be
some doubts about quality assurance aspects in the very long run (decades and centuries
from now). On the technology readiness scale ACW landfill scores at the highest level: 9.
In conclusion:
TRL ACW landfill = 9
4.4 Distance to market ACW landfill
Given the fact that ACW landfill is on the market for several decades now, its distance to
market is zero. In the Netherlands the actual gate fees (ranging from 55 to 130 €/ton
depending on regional authorities (average 90 €/ton) (plus € 13/ton taxes)) and the
present legal conditions, allow for a steady business case to operate and maintain ACW
landfill practices and to build up funds for everlasting control and protection activities.23
There are, with a few exceptions, hardly any signals indicating lack of public acceptance.
23 See: Nazorgregeling Wet Milieubeheer and the RINAS calculation model (http://www.nazorgstortplaatsen.nl/Default.aspx).
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
48
In conclusion:
The distance to market of ACW landfill is zero.
4.5 Sustainability aspects ACW landfill
From a sustainability point of view ACW landfill has stronger and weaker points. Its strong
points are: the marginal amount of energy that is required for the landfill activity as such
and consequentially the small (potential) CO2 footprint; the easy logistics and well-tried
and tested control of risks for man and environment; the opportunity to earmark ‘full’
landfill sites as ‘safe’ landscapes (in which the ACW is a kind of ‘filler’), to be used for
specific purposes.24
Negative points are: the remaining intrinsic risks of the landfilled asbestos that are passed
on to future generations; no mass/volume reduction, hence no reduction of space for
landfill; the need for continuous control and protection of the site.
In conclusion:
The sustainability aspects of ACW landfill:
– (+): marginal energy use and small CO2 footprint; control of logistics and risks; use of
ACW as a filler for ‘safe’ landscapes
– (-): unreduced use of space, remaining intrinsic risks of asbestos as well as need for
ongoing control and protection of site passed on to future generations
4.6 Area of application ACW landfill
Dutch landfill sites (with the appropriate licences) accept all types of ACW, indiscriminate
of the actual asbestos mass percentage in the waste stream and the other waste items that
have come along in the removal process. The already permitted capacity for landfill sites
exceeds the required space for the full amount of asbestos cement roofings and pipes waste
that may have to be dumped in the years to come.25
In conclusion:
The area of application of ACW landfill is: all ACW.
24 Examples are known where these landscapes are used for sports and leisure activities and for the placement of specific types of buildings. 25 According to the report Afvalverwerking in Nederland, gegevens 2016 (‘Waste treatment in the Netherlands, data 2016’) the total remaining landfill capacity per 31-12-2016 was 34,3 million m3, next to 8,3 million m3 planned/permitted capacity that is yet to be realised.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
49
5. Assessment of thermal asbestos waste treatment techniques
5.1 Technology readiness level thermal ACW treatment techniques
Thermal asbestos waste treatment techniques have been applied on industrial scale in
several countries.
Well-known is the plasma-torch vitrification installation of Inertam of the Europlasma
group at Morcenx, France, that has been functioning since 1999.26 Vitrification by means of
Joule-heating (which is a thermal process involving the use of high power currents made to
flow through the material to be melted (Dellisanti et al., 2009)) has been done on large
scale in Japan (Spasiano et al., 2017). Vitrification with an electrical furnace has been called
‘best demonstrated available technology’ by the US EPA (OVAM (a), 2016).
There have been thermal denaturation installations in Germany (e.g. in Hockenheim
(Boeren et al., 2004), in the United Kingdom (LLW Respository Ltd, 2016) and elsewhere
(OVAM (a), 2016)). The LLW study considers ‘asbestos incineration’ (2 hours at 1100 –
1250 0C) as a mature technique with TRL 9.
In the Netherlands, a series of initiatives to build an asbestos thermal denaturation
installation has been undertaken, in which several studies have underpinned the
effectiveness and the required process parameters of the thermal denaturation technique
(Infestos / Twee “R” interview; see Appendix report).
An initiative in the Netherlands for recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in
steel melting furnaces has been supported by several studies that demonstrate the
technology’s effectiveness in destroying asbestos fibres (Purified Metal Company interview
(see Appendix report) and references). This in turn has led to concrete investment plans for
an installation (expected to be operational in 2020).27
Thermo-chemical treatment has been developed into a patented process (TCCT:
thermo-chemical conversion technology). Test runs of several days took place in the USA,
most recent in 2002 and 2007 (ARI Technologies Inc., 2007), followed by some business
activities of candidate licensees in Ireland, Japan, Australia and the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands a new initiative is developed, based on a combination of TCCT and DTO
(Dynamic Thermal Oxidation – of energy rich waste streams) and/or P2F (plastic to fuel –
pyrolysis of non-recyclable plastics); the latter two techniques are expected to provide a
substantial part of the energy consumption of TCCT (AM&P-Groep interview; see Appendix
report).
There are other thermal techniques that have proved effective on lab scale, but that
don’t seem to be upscaled. This seems for instance to be the case for the technique of
ceramitization (the CORDIAM process; Abruzzese et al., 1998).
26 See: http://www.inertam.com 27 See http://www.purifiedmetal.com
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
50
For thermal denaturation by microwave the impression is somewhat confusing; several
references point at effective asbestos debris destruction by mobile microwave installations
in Japan after the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 (e.g. Kashimura et al., 2015). However, no
instances of replication are known and new studies (on MTT: Microwave Thermal
Treatment) still appear to be on pilot scale (Parosa, 2017).
Other new thermal treatment concepts, like Laser induced rapid melting (Fujishige et al.,
2014) and SHS (self-propagating high temperature synthesis (Gaggero et al., 2016)) are still
in an embryonic state or are in the process of gradual upscaling.
In conclusion the Technology Readiness Levels of the different thermal techniques are:
TRL vitrification = 9
TRL thermal denaturation = 9
TRL thermal denaturation with microwave = 5 (or 7)
TRL recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces = 8
TRL thermo-chemical treatment = 7
TRL thermo-chemical conversion and DTO/P2F = 7
TRL ceramitization = 4
TRL SHS (self-propagating high temperature synthesis) = 5
TRL laser induced rapid melting = 3
5.2 Distance to market thermal ACW treatment techniques
Notwithstanding their technological readiness, up till now none of these thermal
techniques have entered the Dutch market. There is still some distance to (this) market,
which is mostly due to non-technical factors. The main one of these factors concerns the
often somewhat difficult business case under Dutch market conditions for thermal
treatment of asbestos waste. Generally speaking, these thermal techniques are costly, due
to the types of (medium or large scale) installations that are required and the high amount
of energy that is needed for fibre destruction (typically somewhere between 500 and 1.500
kWh/ton). Given these costs, thermal techniques in general cannot be applied profitably in
a situation (in the Netherlands) in which ACM is accepted at landfill sites for gate fees in
the order of 55 to 130 €/ton.
From 2017 onwards the Dutch National Waste Plan 3 (LAP3) has come into effect.
Interestingly, LAP3 has a provision that if an alternative treatment technique is available,
under certain conditions28 a landfill ban for asbestos can come into effect. One of these
conditions is that treatment of asbestos waste can be done at a maximum gate fee of
205 €/ton.
A gate fee of 205 €/ton will not lead to a viable business case for vitrification with its
high energy requirements. E.g.: in France Inertam charges 1.000–2.500 €/ton (average
price: 1.500 €/ton) (OVAM (a), 2016). So, the distance to the Dutch market for vitrification
is still substantial.
28 These conditions for the treatment techniques are: (1) smaller environmental footprint or reduced risks / improved public health; (2) there is a market for the end-product; (3) costs for the disposer do not exceed 205 €/ton; (4) the technique is functioning properly, can deal with 75% of the total waste supply and a plan is at hand to deal with 100% of the waste within two years.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
51
For thermal denaturation, however, the situation could be different. According to the
Dutch patent holders, a viable business model is possible for this price (Interview Infestos /
Twee “R”; see Appendix report), since the thermal denaturation operates at lower
temperatures (1.000 0C) and therefore at lower costs. But there are other non-technical
issues that still act as barriers for this technique to enter the Dutch market. They include:
– The nature of the technology, combined with the LAP3 requirement before a landfill ban
can be proclaimed, that from the start 75% of the supply must be treated, calls for an
installation of high capacity (100.000 ton/year). For investors to be willing to invest in
an installation of this size, several securities must be in place.
– One of these securities concerns the availability of a stable supply of ACM (of a
controlled quality), including sites for temporary storage (buffers; possibly at the landfill
sites) and a functioning (and guaranteed) logistic chain from disposer via waste disposal
sites to the treatment site.
– Another security concerns the acceptance (by the market and the authorities) of the
end-product (‘beststof’) as a harmless substance that can be traded, exported and
processed.
– According to the patent holders, several of these requirements (requirements that are
mentioned by the patent holders are: separate collection of asbestos cement waste from
other asbestos waste streams at source, the logistic chain, the role of waste disposal
sites, the proclamation and enforcement of a landfill ban) can only be met through the
active intervention of the authorities (which hasn’t happened so far).
These non-technical issues lead to a situation in which there still is a little, but difficult to
overcome distance to the Dutch market for thermal denaturation of asbestos waste.
For the technique of recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting
furnaces, the main element of the business case lies in the recycling of asbestos
containing steel scrap to asbestos-free homogeneous steel scrap in batches of circa 20 ton
of known composition. The market value of this end-product makes the treatment already
profitable under present market conditions (i.e. with a gate fee competitive to the one
charged at landfill sites) (Interview Purified Metal Company; see Appendix report).
The initiators stress that also in this case investors require several securities. They include
the security of a properly functioning installation, of feedstock, of a market for end-
products, of a gate fee and of contractual and other legal conditions.
Having met these requirements, the initiators expect to have a fully operational installation
running in one to two years (around 2020).
Experiences with former application of these techniques show the importance of public and
administrative acceptance, which in turn appears to depend on risk perceptions and trust
in quality assurance. Lack of transparent quality assurance (and the inspection thereof) at
the thermal denaturation installation in Hockenheim, Germany, was one such learning
experience.29 Public opposition to experiments with asbestos destruction in steel melting
furnaces in the Netherlands was another.30
29 See: https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/service/presse/pressemitteilung/pid/asbestentsorgung-in-hockenheim-abgeschlossen/ 30 See: https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/122292/Asbestproeven-Nedstaal-gaan-definitief-niet-door
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
52
For thermo-chemical treatment to enter the Dutch market, there are still some tests to
be done to ensure the guaranteed fibre destruction and the reusability of the end-product,
especially as a clay substitute in the ceramic industry (e.g. for the production of bricks).
Calculations – based on an installation with a processing capacity of 80 tons ACW/day –
have shown viable business cases, both for ACW treatment with TCCT (gate fee of € 175,-)
and for the TCCT-DTO/P2F-combination (gate fee of € 135,-) (including the gate fee for the
energy rich ‘sorter residue’). The latter figure indicates the ‘balancing’ effect of using the
energy that results from burning energy rich waste streams. Both business cases are built
on higher gate fees than the present gate fee for landfill, as well as on the availability of
adequate storage capacity to ensure the regulated supply of ACW that the process requires.
In conclusion:
The distance to market for thermal techniques is largely dependent on non-technical
factors.
– For vitrification the distance to market is big; even the maximum gate fee that would
allow for a landfill ban to come into place, could probably not cover the high costs of
the application of the technique.
– For thermal denaturation the distance to market is small but not easy to overcome;
next to the possibility of a higher gate fee (made possible by a landfill ban), several
requirements still have to be met concerning a guaranteed and steady flow of feedstock
of the right quality, and acceptance by the market and the authorities of the resulting
end-product.
– For recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces the distance to
market is very small. As it seems, there is a proven technology and a solid business
case, and no signs of lack of public and administrative acceptance at the presently
designated location.
– For thermo-chemical treatment the distance to market is rather small, albeit a little
bigger than for thermal denaturation. A definitive proof of operation and of the quality
of the end-product is still required. Once this has been obtained, investment planning
can start, for which, however, the possibility of higher gate fees (made possible by a
landfill ban) and a steady flow of feedstock are essential requirements as well.
5.3 Sustainability aspects thermal ACW treatment techniques
An important positive sustainability aspect of thermal treatment of asbestos is that with the
proper temperatures and processing time, complete fibre destruction is guaranteed,
following elementary laws of physical chemistry. This process can be controlled and
monitored on the basis of a few clear parameters (like core temperature and time), which
allows for rather robust Quality Assurance (and easy inspection). Monitoring of the end-
product (certification) will always remain necessary.
On the other hand, the relatively high amount of energy needed for thermal destruction of
asbestos (in the order of 500 to 1.500 kWh/ton) makes for an important other pressing
sustainability aspect: thermal techniques have a potentially large CO2 footprint.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
53
The latter picture may look somewhat different, however, if in the equation an ‘energy
balance’ is included of the products of the process versus the products they replace. This
hardly makes a difference where the end-product is an inert filler, like with vitrification. A
case can be (and is) made when it comes to end-products that can replace clay, active fillers
(in granulates) or even cement, since the production of such clay, fillers or cement itself
also requires serious amounts of energy. The most serious claim for an energy balance that
evens out the CO2 footprint of the thermal treatment, however, concerns the recycling of
asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces. Indeed, almost all energy is used
for the melting of steel, and this amount of energy more or less equals the amount that is
used to recycle steel from steel scrap without asbestos (or to produce new steel from ore).
The asbestos destruction almost occurs as a ‘side effect’ that hardly takes any energy itself.
An interesting variant of this ‘energy balancing’ approach can be found in the initiative in
which thermo-chemical treatment of asbestos is combined with techniques to obtain fuel
from non-recyclable plastics (‘P2F’) and to use energy from burning energy rich waste
streams (‘DTO’). However, this combination of techniques drives up the number of process
parameters that must be controlled (which is a risk-element).
Next to the ‘energy balance’, the circular use of asbestos waste is a positive sustainability
aspect in itself. The same holds true for the prevention of risks as a result of fibre
destruction. On the other hand there is some additional risk for occupational health and
safety and for the environment (as compared to landfill), as a consequence of the extra31
handling and logistics that these techniques require, like (pre-) separation of asbestos
waste at source or at the plant, size reduction, shredding and grinding.
The advantage, from a sustainability point of view, of thermal denaturation over the other
thermal techniques, is that for thermal denaturation no size reduction and grinding have to
take place (interview Infestos / Twee “R”; see Appendix report). The ACW goes straight
into the oven without further ado, and what comes out is a harmless substance.
All thermal treatment installation produce exhaust gases that must be treated by an after-
burner, cooled down and led through a HEPA filter before the cleaned gases can be
emitted. Treatment of less homogeneous asbestos containing waste streams will require a
more elaborate flue gas cleaning installation.
In conclusion:
When it comes to the sustainability aspects of the different thermal techniques, the
following can be said.
– (+) In general, they effect complete fibre destruction and result in mass and volume
reduction.
– (+) The quality and effectiveness of the process can be controlled, monitored and
inspected robustly on the basis of a few clear process parameters. Monitoring of the
end-product will always remain necessary.
– (-) In general, thermal techniques have a potentially large CO2 footprint (energy use in
the order of 500 to 1.500 kWh/ton).
31 As compared to the ACW landfill reference.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
54
– (+) The CO2 footprint is partially compensated by the use of the end-product (in the
case of thermo-chemical treatment) as substitute for clay, or (in the case of thermal
denaturation) to substitute active fillers or cement (the production of which also
requires energy), and is largely compensated when the end-product is steel scrap
(where the recycling of steel without asbestos in fact requires just as much of energy).
– (+) The CO2 footprint can also be somewhat compensated (as in the case of the Dutch
proposal for thermo-chemical treatment) by using the energy obtained from burning
energy rich waste as part of the required energy for the destruction of asbestos.
– (-) The extra handling and logistics that are required for thermal treatment (like (pre-)
separation of ACM waste streams, size reduction, shredding, grinding) require extra
energy and produce some additional risks for occupational health and safety and the
environment. This is to a lesser extent the case for thermal denaturation, where no pre-
processing is required.
– (-) Due to the size and capacity of the installations, there will be room for one or at the
most a few of them in the Netherlands, which implies that the asbestos-containing
waste has to be transported to these installations (extra transport when compared to
regional landfill).
– (-) All thermal techniques produce exhaust gases that must be treated and controlled
before emission to the environment.
5.4 Area of application thermal ACW treatment techniques
From a technical point of view, thermal techniques are suitable to treat any type of ACW. At
the temperatures at which asbestos fibres are destroyed, all other waste products generated
by asbestos removal companies decompose as well.
From an economical point of view, however, most thermal techniques require specific types
of ACM in order to have a viable business case.
Vitrification is most of all a suitable technique to treat highly problematic (toxic, radio-
active) ACM, that justifies the high costs of the treatment.
The technique of thermal denaturation is mostly suited for the treatment of a constant
and homogeneous stream of ACM, e.g. asbestos cement roofings or pipes, for optimum
control of the process control and of the composition of the end-product, since this end-
product needs to be certified for reuse.
The process of recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces
requires a substantial percentage of steel scrap in the waste stream to get enough yield from
the process (the non-‘steel scrap’ part of the waste ends up in slags that have hardly any
economic value).
With Thermo-chemical treatment (combined with the DTO and P2F techniques) all
types of ACM can be treated, but preferably no asbestos containing soil and no metals. The
combined techniques are particularly suitable for ACW with high-energy waste, for
instance asbestos containing floor cover and floor tiles.
In conclusion:
The areas of application of thermal techniques are:
– For vitrification: highly problematic (toxic, radio-active) ACM
– For thermal denaturation: a constant and homogeneous stream of ACM, e.g. asbestos
cement (corrugated) sheets or pipes
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
55
– For recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces: asbestos
containing steel scrap
– Thermo-chemical treatment (combined with the DTO and P2F techniques): all ACM
except soil; preferably ACW with high-energy waste (and preferably no metals)
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
57
6. Assessment of chemical asbestos waste treatment techniques
6.1 Technology readiness level chemical ACW treatment techniques
There are several processes described for the chemical destruction of asbestos. Earlier
attempts on a pilot scale to decompose asbestos in an alkaline environment have not
been very successful (such as the (patented) TreSeNeRie process (OVAM (a) 2016)).
Though the chemical structure of asbestos will be destroyed by strong alkaline solution, all
kinds of technical problems were encountered during the pilot tests due to the aggressive
alkaline solution in combination with high temperature and elevated pressure. Also, the
process needs a high liquid-solid ratio. Thus, a significant amount of NaOH is needed for
an industrial scale installation, with associated economic consequences. This was an
important reason to stop the further development of the process. Therefore the TRL of a
process based on alkaline destruction is low.
Better prospects provides the acid destruction of asbestos fibres, especially when waste
strong acids from chemical industry can be used. In most of the described processes
hydrochloric acid (HCl) is used, but sulphuric acid (H2SO4), phosphoric acid (H3PO4) or
nitric acid (HNO3) are used as well in several processes. Pawelczyk (Pawelczyk et al., 2017)
and Trefler (Trefler et al., 2004 ) describe a process with phosphoric acid in which the end-
product, a mixture of several phosphates, can be used as a fertilizer. Fluoric acid (HF) can
be used (Sugama et al., 1998) and has the additional effect of attacking the Si bonds
(amphibole destruction). Gaseous SiF4 (corrosive and toxic) will be one of the reaction
products.
In the Netherlands several chemical industries produce major amounts of waste acid.
Neutralisation and subsequent discharge into the surface water is the common procedure.
Therefore, the use of waste acid for asbestos destruction has environmental advantages
(interview Deltalinqs; see Appendix report). Pilot test (lab scale) have been carried out
which proved that, besides neutralizing the waste acid by the cement in asbestos cement,
complete fibre destruction was effected for chrysotile. The process has to be accommodated
however for the destruction of amphiboles.
The developers are aware that upscaling of the process to an industrial scale, including the
use of other waste streams for the destruction of asbestos, will still cost a lot of effort.
The process requires at least a medium sized installation with an estimated capacity of
15.000 – 50.000 tons/year, a buffer amount of asbestos containing material as well as
waste acids to be used. Such an installation will not be transportable.
The process can be accommodated in such a way that CO2 capture is possible as well.
Several processes for the sequestration of CO2 by carbonation are described in literature.
Some processes use direct mineral carbonation from the gaseous phase. At natural
conditions the CO2 capture/carbonation process is slow (Bodor et al., 2013; O Conner et al.,
2000; Veetil et al., 2014; Trapasso et al., 2012; Yoon and Roh, 2012; Pan et al., 2012;
Radvanec et al., 2013).
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
58
Weak acids are used in commercial processes as well, such as those based on oxalic acid
(Turci et al., 2010, Rozalen and Huertas, 2013). As reported by Rozalen and Huertas, the
reaction time for destruction of chrysotile takes about 9 days for oxalic acid and even longer
(30 days) for sulphuric acid. This means that oxalic acid also reacts as a chelate for the Mg-
ions, which speeds up the transformation reaction. The EcO Insight32 process (US patent)
uses waste organic acids from agro-food industry. Reaction speed can be increased at
elevated temperature/pressure conditions. For a complete destruction of the asbestos a
temperature of 200 0C and a pressure of 6 bar is needed. As is usual for U.S.A. patented
processes, hardly any process details are available. No information about the end-product
and the reusability is provided Another process describes the use of whey (Balducci et al.,
2012, Alimenta, 2017). This process is based on a double-phase immersion of asbestos
cement products in the acid by-products (whey) of cheese making processes. The first
phase makes the cement soluble, while the second one, at 180°C, is supposed to completely
destroy the asbestos fibres.
The complete degradation of amphibole asbestos (for all acid processes), chelating
additives as citric acid, oxalic acid or EDTA are needed. As long as complete degradation is
not thoroughly proved, the TRL for the technique for the destruction of amphibole fibres is
regarded as low.
A general disadvantage of chemical methods is that the end-product must be neutralized
and, if possible, converted into a reusable end-product. If this is not possible, this will
lower the TRL value.
In conclusion:
TRL strong acids (chrysotile) = 3 - 5
TRL strong acids and chelating additives (amphibole asbestos) = 2 - 4
TRL weak acids = 3 - 5
TRL alkaline process = 2 – 4
TRL carbon capture / mineral carbonation = 2 – 4
6.2 Distance to market chemical ACW treatment techniques
Proven technique: Though several chemical treatment processes have been applied in
the past, most of them failed for several reasons, including technical and economic aspects,
the limited applicability of the end-product and/or health and safety aspects. However, new
approaches of this principle in combination with the detoxification and/or neutralisation of
other waste streams and improved technology give prospects for possible solutions to these
problems. At the moment the results of recent pilot scale tests are awaited, including tests
on the reusability of the end-product and its capability to overcome practical problems,
such as the purity of the chemicals used and the capability for complete destruction of
amphibole asbestos types. If the pilot phase has been successfully completed the process
should be scaled up to a semi industrial size which will be substantial step to decrease the
distance to market.
32 www.eco-insightusa.com
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
59
Financial risk and securities, business case: The technical process has to be
supported by a parallel process of finding funding, partners in industry. The process needs
at least a medium size installation which should be supported by a well-balanced business
case (interview Deltalinqs; see Appendix report).
Public and administrative acceptance: Public acceptance will depend strongly on the
location that is chosen. If the installation is located close to a an asbestos landfill or
chemical plant (industrial area), no major problems are expected. Administrative
acceptance will probably require an environmental impact study in which all process,
environmental and safety aspects have to be evaluated. This will include the use of
chemicals, transport et cetera.
In conclusion: There is still quite a distance to market, given the number of technical and
non-technical requirements that still have to be fulfilled:
– The technique is proven for the destruction of chrysotile in asbestos cement on a pilot
scale but not yet on an industrial scale, which results in a considerable distance to
market.
– Complete destruction of amphiboles has to be proved.
– For acid destruction using waste acids a business case still needs to be established, and
the adequate financial support must still be found. Therefore, also from a business-
economic point of view there is a considerable distance to market.
– So far there is no indication of lack of public and administrative acceptance.
– The actual planning and construction process, including environmental impact studies
and requests for permits, is in its earliest stages.
6.3 Sustainability aspects chemical ACW treatment techniques
Regarding sustainability, chemical treatment has stronger and weaker points. Its strong
points are that it can be combined with other waste streams from industry, such as acid
waste, alkaline waste or CO2. This can be advantageous from the points of view of saved
disposal costs, low energy consumption (an exothermic process has to be cooled) and
environmental benefits. A strong point is the complete fibre destruction of chrysotile.
However, far as the other asbestos types are concerned, complete fibre destruction still has
to be proved. More in general, a weaker point is that chemical treatment processes have an
asymptotic decay of the reaction rate (depending on reactive surfaces and concentration of
reactants) and can be subject to disturbances from irregular ACW composition. Also,
working with strong acids requires strict health and safety measures; reaction products
must be neutralized to obtain a reusable end-product. As described in literature, waste
streams from agro industries can be used as well, but the reusability of the end-products
raises questions. Reusability of the end-products will also depend on the purity of the
chemicals used and the absence of toxic impurities (chemical by-products) in the end-
product.
The use of an alkaline process has additional safety risks caused by high pressure, high
temperature, high pH and possible corrosion of the pipe linings of the reactor. Therefore,
the sustainability is regarded as low.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
60
In conclusion:
The sustainability aspects of chemical treatment are:
(+) low energy use: exothermic process, has to be cooled
(+) complete fibre destruction for chrysotile
(+) combines the detoxification/neutralisation of two or more industrial waste streams
(+) CO2-capture/carbonation has a beneficial effect on the CO2 footprint of the process
(+) can be located at or close to industrial plants (no transport of industrial acids);
(-) asymptotic decay of the rate of reaction and risks of process disturbances by irregular
ACW composition or supply require strict process control
(-) pre-processing of ACW is required
(-) the reusability of the end-product still has to be proved
(-) occupational health and safety as well as environmental aspects: chemical processes
have their intrinsic risks; this is especially the case for alkaline processes (strong alkaline
chemicals at elevated temperature and pressure) and processes based on destruction
with HF
(-) All acid or alkaline reaction products must first be neutralized to obtain a reusable
end-product; the end-product must not be contaminated with toxic (by-) products; for
acid destruction of amphiboles chelate forming additives are needed
6.4 Area of application chemical ACW treatment techniques
Chemical destruction of asbestos has only advantages if combined with other waste streams
such as waste acids from chemical industry. For process control the asbestos waste should
be homogeneous to some extent (e.g. asbestos cement, friable asbestos et cetera). Chemical
treatment techniques are not suited for very heterogeneous ACM. Complete destruction of
amphiboles, using chelating additives, should be proven. This is especially important for
the destruction of asbestos cement products which, besides 10-15% chrysotile, may contain
5-10% crocidolite as well.
In conclusion:
– Chemical treatment can be applied for the denaturation of a homogeneous stream of
ACM which contains chrysotile asbestos, such as asbestos cement or friable asbestos.
– For the decomposition of amphiboles chelating additives are needed. Effective fibre
destruction is still to be proved.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
61
7. Assessment of mechanical asbestos waste treatment techniques
7.1 Technology readiness level mechanical ACW treatment techniques
Mechanical asbestos waste treatment (i.e. high energy milling system) has, after laboratory
scale trials in 2003 and 2011, been applied on pilot/semi-industrial scale in South Africa
(2015 and 2016) and planned in New Zealand (2018) (EDL, 2017).
The tested installation, based on the Mechano-Chemical Destruction technique (MCD), is
developed by Environmental Decontamination Europe LTD (EDL), a New Zealand based
company (interview with EDL; see Appendix report). The patented MCD technique is a
continuous (high energy) ball milling system. The (modular) ball milling system consist of a
cascade of milling units (from coarse to ultra-fine fraction) and can in terms of capacity
easily be scaled up.
The MCD process has been developed for the destruction of toxic and carcinogenic
substances. The process demonstrated its effectiveness during tests held between 2004 and
2012 by destroying a range of organic contaminants in soil (e.g. (persistent) organic
contaminants like PCB’s, Pesticides and Dioxins) (EDL, 2017).
Treatment of ACM is the next step in the development of the MCD process. The available
technical data, quality assurance data and data related to the quality of the end-product
(available so far) show a technique that is proven on pilot/semi-industrial scale. The results
of full-scale (industrial scale) tests carried out on asbestos containing waste (March 2018),
are currently worked out and will give more insight in pre-treatment of ACW, process
parameters, emission control, practical data like energy consumption, quality and
reusability of the end-product and finally which fine-tuning is needed for market
introduction.
The technology ready level of the MCD technique is classified, status from early 2018 with
sight on full-scale tests, as TRL 8 – 9.
In conclusion:
TRL Mechano-Chemical Destruction technique (MCD) = 8 – 9
7.2 Distance to market mechanical ACW treatment techniques
Although the ultimate proof for the industrial scale still has to be delivered, the distance to
market for the MCD technique is relatively small. A combination of technical and non-
technical factors play a role here.
The technique itself is rather mature. Moreover, the process installation is modular and
scalable, and has a low to medium capacity (approximately 25.000 tons/year). As a
consequence, the installation has a short construction time. Because of the low process
temperature and the effectiveness of the process in destroying organic contaminants
(including asbestos bags and asbestos contaminated remediation materials) the cleaning of
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
62
exhaust emissions does not require a large and comprehensive post-treatment installation.
On the other hand, the process places high demands on the pre-treatment of the ACM.
Firstly, the ACM must be crushed to fragments that are not larger than 10 mm in length
and width. Secondly and most importantly, the crushed ACM needs to be dried to less than
1 % (w/w) moisture content, otherwise the high energy milling process will not work
efficiently and effectively. This implies a well-designed and controlled pre-treatment
process, both for normal process conditions and for breakdown conditions, including
maintenance and repair.
On the financial side the risks are relatively small, because of the low capital investments
(approximately € 6 million, excluding air emission equipment). Energy consumption is not
extremely high. Available data suggest the energy use (including pre-treatment (crushing
and drying)) can be estimated at 60 – 70 kWh/ton. A rough estimate of the costs of energy
per ton, based on Dutch large consumer electricity tariffs, lies in the order of € 10 per ton.
Given these investment and cost estimates, businesses using this technique are expected to
be highly competitive in terms of gate fees to most other treatment techniques (excluding
landfill).
There are no indications of lack of administrative or public acceptance.
In conclusion:
The distance to market of the mechanical treatment technique (MCD process) is relatively
small. The technique is proven on a pilot/semi-industrial scale and has also proved to be
effective for other (organic) contaminants.
Before market introduction the proof on industrial scale still has to be delivered. The pre-
treatments demands are strict (dimensions of crushed ACM and moisture content). On the
other hand, the installation has a short construction time.
Because of the relatively low capital investments and relatively low energy consumption, a
positive business case is expected. The technique can probably be operated profitably for a
gate fee that is considerably lower than the maximum gate fee mentioned in LAP3 (€ 205
per ton).
7.3 Sustainability aspects mechanical ACW treatment techniques
The positive sustainability aspects of mechanical treatment of ACM are its simplicity and
robustness (simple quality assurance: dimensions and moisture content of the influx and
process time (residence time in the process reactors)), the complete fibre destruction that is
realised and the reusability of the end-product (which is yet to be proved on industrial
scale). Facilities for cleaning of the exhaust dust and gasses and other environmental
control techniques (possibly also including noise) are relatively simple, also because the
process takes place, as much as possible, in a closed system.
The relative low energy consumption (and potential CO2 footprint) of the milling process
(including the pre-treatment, i.e. crushing and drying) is another strong point. Because of
reusability of the end-product, energy is saved for winning and producing raw materials
like cement and fillers in the conventional way.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
63
Because of the modularity of the MCD treatment installation, a complete system fits into
one or more standard sea container(s). This means the installation is easily transportable,
also close to the source of ACM, which has positive consequences for the amount of ACM
transport kilometres (and consequent risks).
A weaker point concerns the (potential) occupational health and safety and environmental
risks of the pre-treatment handling (i.e. crushing and milling) of the ACM before fibre
destruction has taken place. To a lesser extent this is also the case for the handling of the
ultra-fine end-product after the destruction has taken place. Strict containment and control
measures are required here.
In conclusion:
The sustainability aspects of mechanical treatment are:
(+) The simplicity and robustness of the process (less quality control parameters),
complete fibre destruction, reusability of the end-product (cement/filler), the relatively
low energy consumption for the treatment process, the relatively simple environmental
control techniques and the modularity/mobility of the installation (less transport
kilometres for ACM).
(-): The process requires drying, which takes 25% of the total energy consumption of the
treatment process; also, measures will have to be taken to safeguard the process from the
health and safety and environmental risks of handling the ACM and ultra-fine end-
product.
7.4 Area of application mechanical ACW treatment techniques
Although the mechanical treatment technique (MCD process) can destruct all types of ACM
and even toxic and carcinogenic substances, a homogeneous feed of asbestos cement will
make the process more controllable and produce a qualitatively better and certifiable end-
product.
In conclusion:
The preferred area of application of mechanical ACW treatment techniques is a
homogeneous stream of asbestos cement.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
65
8. Assessment of biological asbestos waste treatment techniques
8.1 Technology readiness level biological ACW treatment techniques
The principle of biological degradation of asbestos by fungi (and/or lichens and bacteria)
was described first in 2003 by Torino University, Italy. Certain types of fungi were found
‘eating’ on naturally occurring serpentine minerals. Based on this principle several research
groups carried out successful lab test as well as pilot scale tests on biological degradation
(interview Arcadis, interview Deltares; see Appendix report). Interesting results were
presented, especially on the remediation of soils contaminated with chrysotile fibres. For
the destruction of amphibole asbestos types research is going on. Most promising is the in
situ degradation of asbestos in soil using certain types of fungi. Pilot tests on asbestos
contaminated sites have been carried out in 2017 and will be upscaled to “real life”
contaminated sites in 2018 (interview Arcadis). In fact the same biological degradation
process can be applied to asbestos cement or other ACM, but this requires pre-treatment,
special designed bio-reactor vessels and optimum conditions. Lab experiments have been
successful and pilot tests will be carried out during 2018 (interview Deltares).
It is to be expected that the reaction speed for biological degradation will decrease
asymptotically, caused by several factors such as the availability of free fibre surface,
availability of fungi et cetera. Therefore the completeness of destruction of the asbestos
fibre structure must be controlled using state of the art analytical techniques. Though
complete destruction of chrysotile fibres has been proved in pilot tests, there are still
uncertainties about the effectiveness when the method is used on contaminated sites in real
life.
In conclusion:
TRL biological treatment of asbestos in soil (free fibres in situ) = 5 – 6
TRL biological treatment of asbestos cement and other ACM (in bioreactor) = 1 – 3
8.2 Distance to market biological ACW treatment techniques
Important advantages of biological in situ remediation of asbestos contaminated soil are:
low investment costs, no complicated pre-treatments required. Another important
advantage is a great saving on the remediation costs. Complete excavation of the soil, with
far-reaching consequences for the environment, can be avoided. There are some input
requirements, though, since at this moment the effectiveness of the process is only proved
for free chrysotile fibres (not in matrix). The biological process is slow which means that
the contaminated site cannot be used and requires site management for a longer period.
The biological degradation of asbestos in soil is a complex mechanism which is influenced
by fungi, bacteria, soil type and other local conditions and the progress of the remediation
process must be monitored periodically using state of the art analytical techniques.33 In
33 Interestingly, when using these analytical techniques on older existing asbestos contaminated sites, situations were encountered where biological asbestos degradation had already been taking place for years, sometimes even up to the point that no unaffected fibres were found.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
66
spite of these complicating factors the distance to market is regarded as relatively small
because the impact will be very low (‘doesn’t hurt to try’)
Regarding the low TRL for biological treatment of asbestos cement products the distance to
market is big. The impact of biological processes on the environment is expected to be low
which can be a promoting factor for public acceptance.
In conclusion:
(+) Method can be used at semi industrial scale for the remediation of chrysotile asbestos
fibres in soil at low cost; it will generate hardly any disturbance of the environment, which
can be an advantage for public acceptance
(+) Investment costs are low and expensive traditional excavation can be prevented
(-) Completeness of asbestos fibre destruction is not yet proven in real life situations
(-) The biological remediation is slow
8.3 Sustainability aspects biological ACW treatment techniques
For asbestos fibres in soil additional risks from biological treatment are expected to be
manageable and controllable by the selection of ‘safe’ fungi and bacteria. This is an
important aspect in current laboratory research.The energy consumption for biological
degradation in situ will be low, but the process takes time which requires management and
protection of the site during treatment. The final result has to be “asbestos free” soil. It is to
be expected that the reaction speed for biological degradation will decrease exponentially
caused by several factors such as the availability of free fibre surface, availability of fungi et
cetera. Therefore the completeness of destruction of the asbestos fibre structure
must be controlled by adequate standardized analytical methods. The complete process
should be monitored carefully (validation, QA-system, proof of clean soil).
For the biological degradation of asbestos cement bio reactors are needed. asbestos
containing sheets must be transported and crushed to optimum size.
In conclusion:
(+) low energy consumption, process in situ; CO2 footprint is expected to be low.
(+) no transport is required for remediation of asbestos in soil
(-): process for in situ remediation is sustainable but slow (month/years) which requires
management/protection of the site during treatment.
(-) the asymptotical decrease in reaction speed requires careful control on completeness
of asbestos fibre destruction
(-) standard analytical procedures should be optimized for the analysis of complex
transition states of the asbestos degradation process.
(-) for asbestos cement and other ACM, bio reactors, transport and pre-treatment
(crushing et cetera) is needed.
8.4 Area of application biological ACW treatment techniques
The most ready to use application is the biological decomposition of (chrysotile) asbestos
fibres in soil. This process will probably work as well for asbestos cement and other ACM,
but this will have some practical disadvantages such as required pre-treatments, low
capacity, long process time.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
67
The process is not suited for landfill sites were the mixed asbestos waste is buried in plastic
bags, because the fungi and nutrition cannot reach the surface of the asbestos containing
materials.
In conclusion:
– The biological degradation technique is mostly applicable for in situ cleaning
(chrysotile) asbestos contaminated soil.
– Biological degradation of asbestos cement products or other ACM might be
possible in the future but still requires much research.
– Biological degradation cannot be applied on mixed ACW buried in plastic bags on
traditional landfill sites.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
69
9. Summarizing overview of the assessment
9.1 Introduction
In this chapter the assessment of the different techniques is presented in overview tables
and is discussed. When, in the course of this chapter, more scores on assessment criteria
have been presented, also some attention is given to the growing overall picture. The final
overall picture will be discussed in the next, concluding chapter.
9.2 Technology readiness levels
All techniques for asbestos waste treatment have been scored on the 9-points technology
readiness (or TRL) scale (as described in paragraph 3.5.2). The resulting TRL’s are
summarised in Table 4.
Table 4. Overview TRL’s
Technique Technology readiness level (TRL)
Landfill (reference) TRL landfill = 9
Thermal treatment
– Vitrification TRL vitrification = 9
– Thermal denaturation TRL thermal denaturation = 9
– Thermal denaturation with microwave TRL thermal denaturation with microwave = 5 or 7
– Recycling asbestos containing steel
scrap in steel melting furnaces
TRL recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting
furnaces = 8
– Thermo-chemical treatment TRL thermo-chemical treatment = 7
– Ceramitization TRL ceramitization = 4
– SHS (Self-propagating High
temperature Synthesis)
TRL SHS =5
– Laser induced rapid melting TRL laser induced rapid melting = 3
Chemical treatment
– Treatment with strong acids TRL treatment with strong acids = 3 to 5
– Treatment with strong acids and
chelating additives (amphibole
asbestos)
TRL treatment with strong acids and chelating additives
(amphibole asbestos) = 2 to 4
– Treatment with weak acids TRL treatment with weak acids = 3 to 5
– Alkaline process TRL alkaline process = 2 to 4
– CO2 carbon capture/mineral
carbonation
TRL CO2 carbon capture/mineral carbonation = 2 - 4
Mechanical treatment
– Mechano-chemical treatment TRL mechano-chemical treatment = 8 to 9
Biological treatment
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil TRL biological treatment of asbestos in soil, in situ = 5 to 6
– Biological treatment of asbestos
cement and other ACM
TRL biological treatment of asbestos cement and other ACM (in
bioreactor) = 1 to 3
Several techniques can be considered technologically mature. This is particularly the case
for a number of thermal treatment techniques. Vitrification and thermal denaturation
techniques have already been operational on an industrial scale. All elements of the
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
70
technique for recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces have been
functioning on industrial or semi-industrial scale; the only last step is to have these
techniques function in one integrated installation. Finally, the technique for thermo-
chemical treatment will be going through a final test phase, after which it can be scaled up
to industrial level. Other thermal techniques are in a lower developmental phase.
Another mature technique is the mechano-chemical treatment. The technique has been
proven for the destruction of POP’s and Dioxins and has proved effective for the treatment
of ACW on a pilot/semi-industrial scale.
The mechanisms for the destruction of asbestos by chemical and by biological treatments
are known for a longer time already. Still the different techniques based on these mecha-
nisms have only reached pilot stages. New development activities in the Netherlands show
possible new avenues, but require more tests and pilots before techniques can become
operational.
9.3 Distances to market
The summarising overview of distances to market of the assessed techniques is presented
in table 5.
Table 5. Overview distances to market
Technique Distance to market
Distance Explanation
Landfill (reference) None Steady business case, accepted
Thermal treatment
– Vitrification Big Costs too high
– Thermal denaturation Small The introduction of a landfill ban could possibly
result in a sufficient gate fee (the required gate fee
is a threshold for introduction). Other necessary
conditions are guaranteed feedstock and
acceptance of end-product
– Thermal denaturation with microwave Big Technologically immature
– Recycling asbestos containing steel
scrap in steel melting furnaces
Very small Proven technology, solid business case, no signs of
lack of acceptance at designated location
– Thermo-chemical treatment Rather small Proof of operation and of quality of end-product
still required. Requires higher gate fee (possibly
supported by landfill ban) and steady flow of
feedstock
– Ceramitization Big Technologically immature
– SHS (Self-propagating High
temperature Synthesis)
Big Technologically immature
– Laser induced rapid melting Big Technologically immature
Chemical treatment
– Treatment with strong acids Big/medium Proved on lab scale
– Treatment with strong acids and
chelating additives (amphibole
asbestos)
Big Technologically immature
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
71
Technique Distance to market
Distance Explanation
– Treatment with weak acids Big Technologically immature
US patent not transferable to EU market
– Alkaline process Big Technologically immature
– CO2 carbon capture/mineral
carbonation
Big Technologically immature
Mechanical treatment
– Mechano-chemical treatment Small Proved on a semi-industrial scale, requires low
capital investments, favourable prospects for a
positive business case
Biological treatment
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil
in situ
Medium Technologically immature, low entry barriers to
market, favourable prospects for a positive
business case
– Biological treatment of asbestos
cement and other ACM (in bioreactor)
Big Technologically immature
The closest to the market is the technique for recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in
steel melting furnaces. It seems that all it takes for the technique to be on the market is the
construction of the installation. Other thermal techniques (thermal denaturation, thermo-
chemical treatment) are a little more distant to the market, mostly for non-technical
reasons (the business cases require higher gate fees (could be made possible by a landfill
ban), guaranteed feedstock and accepted end-products).
Although there seem to be no concrete plans yet on where and how to enter it, the distance
of the mechano-chemical treatment to the Dutch market is considered to be small. This is
due to the low investment requirements, the medium/high level of mobility/flexibility of
the installation and the treatment’s relatively positive business case (though in terms of
gate fee no competition for landfill).
Interestingly, the distance to market of biological treatment of asbestos in soil in situ is
considered to be ‘medium’. Although the technique is still in its developmental stage, there
is an apparent positive business case and the barriers to entry to the market appear to be
very low.
For the other techniques the distance to market is deemed to be big. Most of them are still
immature techniques; one of them (vitrification) is too expensive.
9.4 Sustainability aspects
The summarising overview of the sustainability aspects of the assessed techniques is
presented in table 6.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
72
Table 6. Overview sustainability aspects
Technique Sustainability aspects
Energy use / potential CO2
footprint
Risks
Landfill (reference) Marginal / small Remaining intrinsic risks of asbestos
Thermal treatment
– Vitrification 1.300 kWh/ton / big (+) complete fibre destruction, robust
process
(-) risks from extra handling and
logistics; exhaust gases must be treated
effectively
– Thermal denaturation 700 kWh/ton / big, somewhat
balanced by reuse of end-product
(+) complete fibre destruction, robust
process;
(-) exhaust gases must be treated
effectively
– Thermal denaturation with microwave No data No data
– Recycling asbestos containing steel
scrap in steel melting furnaces
700 kWh/ton , fully balanced by
reuse of recycled steel scrap
(+) complete fibre destruction, robust
process
(-) risks from extra handling and
logistics; ; exhaust gases must be treated
effectively
– Thermo-chemical treatment 1500 kWh/ton, balanced by 750
kWh/ton yield from burning
energy-rich waste, somewhat
balanced by reuse of end-product
(+) complete fibre destruction (yet to be
proved)
(-) risks from extra handling and
logistics; exhaust gases must be treated
effectively
– Ceramitization No data / big No data
– SHS (Self-propagating High
temperature Synthesis)
No data / big No data
– Laser induced rapid melting No data / big No data
Chemical treatment
– Treatment with strong acids Minor energy use (exothermic
processes need standby cooling
capacity); medium CO2 footprint
(+) complete fibre destruction possible
(yet to be proved on industrial scale);
waste acids stream from industry can be
used;
(-) intrinsic risks from working with
strong acids
– Treatment with strong acids and
chelating additives (amphibole
asbestos)
No data / (similar to treatment
with strong acids)
(-) complete fibre destruction has to be
proved
(-) intrinsic risks from working with
strong acids
– Treatment with weak acids Process can be accelerated by
applying elevated temperature and
pressure; medium CO2 footprint
(+) waste streams from agro-food
industry can be used (such as whey)
(-) very slow process at room
temperature; complete fibre destruction
to be proved
– Treatment with alkaline processes Process works at elevated
temperature and pressure;
medium CO2 footprint
(-) intrinsic risks for working with strong
alkaline at high temperature/pressure
conditions
(-) poor reusability of end-product
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
73
Technique Sustainability aspects
Energy use / potential CO2
footprint
Risks
– CO2 carbon capture/mineral
carbonation
Process works at elevated
temperature and pressure;
medium CO2 footprint
(-) intrinsic risks for working at high
temperature/pressure
(-) slow process
Mechanical treatment
– Mechano-chemical treatment Approx. 60 – 70 kWh/ton / the
required drying takes 25% of the
total energy consumption / small
to medium CO2 footprint,
somewhat or fully balanced by
reuse of end-product
(+) complete fibre destruction possible
(yet to be proved on industrial scale)
(+) modularity/mobility of the
installation
(-) risks from extra handling and
logistics ACM and ultra-fine end-product
Biological treatment
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil
in situ
Low energy use; small CO2
footprint
(+) marginal impact on environment
(-) completeness of asbestos destruction
is not yet proven in practical situations
(asymptotic decrease of reaction speed).
– Biological treatment of asbestos
cement and other ACM (in bioreactor)
Pre-treatments (breaking /
crushing), transport and
bioreactors (mixing vessels) will
use energy; small to medium CO2
footprint
(-) for asbestos cement and other ACM,
bio reactors, transport and pre-
treatment (crushing et cetera) is needed.
Fibre destruction is a crucial sustainability aspect, given its important impact on risks and
reusability of the end-product and, most probably, on public and administrative
acceptance. Thermal and mechano-chemical treatments have the benefit of guaranteed
fibre destruction under the right (easy to control) process conditions. Still, monitoring of
full fibre destruction in the end-product will always remain necessary. Chemical and
biological treatments result in an asymptotic decrease of the processes speed (depending
on reactive surfaces, concentration of reactants) and can suffer disturbances from irregular
waste ACW composition.
The energy use and potential CO2 footprint is one of the main – negative – sustainability
aspects of the thermal treatment techniques. Attempts are made to shrink this potential
footprint by providing an end-product that replaces a product with an energy-intensive
regular production and by innovative combinations of burning energy-rich waste. These
attempts go hand in hand with more economically oriented attempts to develop a viable
business case, given the high price of energy. And so, the thermal techniques that succeed
in bringing down their potential CO2 footprint are simultaneously the techniques with the
smaller distances to market: most of all the technique for recycling asbestos containing
steel scrap in steel melting furnaces, and to a lesser extent thermal denaturation and
thermo-chemical treatment. The inherent lower energy use of the mechanical and
biological treatments, makes that their potential CO2 footprint is smaller in any case. Still
there is a comparison to be made with the energy use for producing the products their end-
products can replace.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
74
As said before, high energy use leads to a high potential CO2 footprint. The actual CO2
footprint also depends on the type of energy used (green or grey). However, the lower the
energy consumption, the easier it becomes to switch to green energy sources (e.g. solar
power).
Handling and logistics of ACM are linked to (potential) occupational health & safety and
environmental risks. With the exception of thermal denaturation (occasional opening of
asbestos bags) and in situ remediation of asbestos contaminated soil, all treatment
techniques more or less need a form of pre-treatment (size reduction), preferably in closed
systems. The mechano-chemical technique needs size reduction as well as drying. Further
attention is drawn to the ultra-fine end-product of the mechano-chemical technique. In a
certain configuration the thermo-chemical treatment technique uses pre-separation for an
optimal processing route. Chemical treatment techniques have their intrinsic handling risks
(strong acids and alkaline chemicals).
These occupational health and safety aspects should not be underestimated. The Threshold
Limit Value for respirable asbestos fibres in The Netherlands is 2000 fibres/m3 of air,
which is considerably lower than in most other EU-countries. It is required by law that all
handling (transport, pre-treatments et cetera) of ACM is described in a protocol and that
measures to prevent possible exposure are validated by the appropriate standard methods.
Some processes can have their specific H&S issues such as the generation of fine dust
particles which may have toxic properties (e.g. forms of respirable silica) or chemicals used
in the process (e.g. strong acids, chemical additives). All such processes require described
protocols for safe handling, validated by measurements based on personal sampling.
Techniques that use smaller installations, or in situ remediation of asbestos contaminated
soil, generate less transport kilometres and less transport risks. Smaller installations can be
located near the place where the ACM is removed and are cheaper to purchase, which
allows for multiple installations spread over the country (e.g. at landfill sites or waste
treatment installations).
9.5 Areas of application
Finally, all techniques have been evaluated on the types of ACW that they can (technically,
profitably) treat. The summarising overview of these areas of application is presented in
table 7.
Table 7. Overview areas of application
Technique Area of application
Landfill (reference) All ACW
Thermal treatment
– Vitrification Highly problematic (toxic, radio-active) ACM
– Thermal denaturation Constant and homogeneous stream of ACM, e.g. asbestos
cement roofings or pipes
– Thermal denaturation with microwave -
– Recycling asbestos containing steel
scrap in steel melting furnaces
Asbestos containing steel scrap
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
75
Technique Area of application
– Thermo-chemical treatment All ACM (except soil and preferably no metals); and high-
energy waste as alternative fuel for the thermo-chemical
conversion process
– Ceramitization -
– SHS (Self-propagating High
temperature Synthesis)
-
– Laser induced rapid melting -
Chemical treatment
– Treatment with strong acids Homogeneous stream of ACM
– Treatment with strong acids and
chelating additives (amphibole
asbestos)
Homogeneous stream of ACM
– Treatment with weak acids Homogeneous stream of ACM
– Alkaline process Homogeneous stream of ACM
– CO2 carbon capture/mineral
carbonation
Homogeneous stream of ACM
Mechanical treatment
– Mechano-chemical treatment Homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
Biological treatment
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil
in situ
(Chrysotile) asbestos contaminated soil
– Biological treatment of asbestos
cement and other ACM (in bioreactor)
Asbestos cement and other ACM
The table shows that all techniques have an own type of feedstock that they can handle
effectively and (under the right conditions) profitably. In many cases the technique itself
could most probably also handle other types of ACW, but this would affect the business
case in a negative way.
A closer look shows that most techniques, and particularly the techniques that were
identified above as more mature and closer to market, have a specific area of their own (a
niche) in which they could have particular added value:
– Recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces: asbestos containing
steel scrap
– Thermal denaturation: a constant and homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
roofings or pipes
– Thermo-chemical treatment: ACW and high-energy waste (alternative fuel)
– Mechano-chemical treatment: (different amounts, due to the easily scalable technique,
and more local) homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil: (chrysotile) asbestos fibres in soil in situ.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
77
10. Conclusions
The aim of this assessment project has been to (1) develop an assessment method for
asbestos waste treatment techniques, and (2) to employ this method to perform an
assessment of all presently available asbestos waste treatment techniques.
The assessment method
As described in chapter 3 of this report, the assessment method has been developed from
two directions. On the one hand – in a bottom-up direction – a first basic set of parameters
that were used in the OVAM study was discussed with an international group of experts,
was analysed and was enriched.
However, instead of using multi-criteria analyses to identify the most high-ranking
techniques on the basis of these parameters (as was done in the OVAM study), in the
present study four well-understandable and highly relevant parameters have been
postulated (all four of a largely qualitative nature), that allow for a transparent weighing
process (by policy makers) for the final appraisal of the techniques. The overall parameters
are:
– Technological readiness level
– Distance to market
– Sustainability aspects
– Area of application
And so, in a more top-down direction, these four overall parameters were linked to the
basic parameters. For this purpose, also a distinction was made between (a) technical
parameters, (b) non-technical parameters that are reasonably objectifiable and (c) non-
technical parameters that are hardly objectifiable. In this way, all relevant aspects of the
techniques are included in a logically ordered assessment.
Assessment of the technique
With the use of this assessment method, all presently known and available techniques have
been assessed. This has led to the following conclusions.
Thermal techniques
– Closest to (the Dutch) market appears to be the technique for recycling asbestos
containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces. The technology is mature, the business
case appears to be sound and there are no indications of lack of administrative and
public acceptance at the designated location.
– Several other techniques are (a little) more distanced to the (Dutch) market, but could
possibly move fast forward (possibly in a few years’ time) if the conditions are right.
These conditions are of a technical nature, a non-technical nature or both.
– The distance to market of the thermal denaturation technique is mainly a matter of
non-technical issues. In order for this technique to obtain a viable business case, a
steady flow of asbestos cement feedstock is required, which in turn requires buffering
capacity and logistic guarantees, as well as acceptance (by authorities and market) of a
certified end-product.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
78
– There are similar requirements for the thermo-chemical treatment technique to enter
the market, but for this technique also some final technical tests must be passed.
Therefore, its distance to market is a bit bigger still, given both the technical and non-
technical conditions that have to be met.
– All thermal techniques require larger, static installations and relatively much energy.
Consequently they have a relatively large potential CO2 footprint, although it must be
taken into account that the end-products can be substitutes for products whose regular
(new) production also entails CO2 emissions. For that reason, for example, the potential
CO2 footprint of recycling asbestos-containing steel scrap is small.
– Due to the size and capacity of the installations, there will be room for one or at the
most a few of them in the Netherlands, which implies that the asbestos-containing waste
has to be transported to these installations (extra transport when compared to regional
landfill). In addition, the processes for recycling asbestos-containing steel scrap and
thermo-chemical treatment require pre-treatment of the waste. For all this, measures
are necessary to protect employees, residents and the environment against the risks of
exposure to asbestos. This is somewhat different for thermal denaturation; no pre-
processing is required here, as the asbestos-containing waste, including the packaging in
polythene bags, goes straight in the oven.
Mechanical techniques
– Something rather similar is the case for the mechano-chemical treatment technique.
The technique is rather mature but some final tests are still taking place. To enter the
Dutch market, also a number of practical issues must be addressed, ranging from
meeting pre-processing requirements to location and permit arrangements. On the
other hand, the mechano-chemical treatment technique is more mobile and flexible and
less capital intensive than many of the other techniques, which may allow for a relative
fast entrance on the market.
– The mechano-chemical treatment technique uses less energy and has a relatively
modest potential CO2 footprint. The scalable and mobile nature of the installation
means that it can be placed close to places where asbestos containing waste originates or
at regional landfill sites. This may lead to less transport of asbestos-containing waste.
However, pre-processing of this waste is required (drying and size reduction), which will
also require the necessary protective measures.
Biological techniques
– There is still a serious (medium) distance to market of biological techniques for in situ
treatment of soil that is contaminated with (chrysotile) asbestos fibres, due to its
technological immaturity. However, soon as this technique is somewhat more under
control, an immediate positive business case can be expected and the barriers to entry to
the market appear to be very low.
– Energy consumption and potential CO2 footprint of biological techniques are minimal.
However, the safety of working with fungi, bacteria and any additives must be
guaranteed.
Chemical techniques
– Although the historical record of chemical asbestos waste treatment techniques is rather
poor, a new development drive has come into Dutch trials, also from an interest of
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
79
making use of industrial acid waste streams. Given the number of technological and
non-technological issues that still have to be overcome, however (including some
relating to sustainability aspects), the distance to market is big.
Other assessed techniques for asbestos waste treatment are either still in an embryonic
stage, are in a standstill after less successful pilot studies, or are in the slow process of being
scaled up.
A further look into the areas of application of these techniques indicate that several of them
may have their own markets or niches of asbestos waste that they can treat most effectively
and profitably:
– Recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel melting furnaces: asbestos containing
steel scrap
– Thermal denaturation: a constant and homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
roofings or pipes
– Thermo-chemical treatment: ACW and high-energy waste (alternative fuel)
– Mechano-chemical treatment: (differing amounts, due to the easily scalable technique,
and more local) homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
– Biological treatment of asbestos in soil: (chrysotile) asbestos fibres in soil in situ.
Discussion
This study shows that there are several techniques for asbestos waste treatment that may
present themselves on the Dutch market in the next years to come. Some of these
techniques will, once they are available, hardly or not require specifically adapted
conditions to fit their needs. For example, recycling asbestos containing steel scrap in steel
melting furnaces and biological treatment of asbestos in soil both appear to have strong
economic drivers. Businesses offering such treatments may possibly require certain
specifically adapted administrative and logistical conditions, but can probably realise
steady business operations under present market conditions.
Some other techniques are however more dependent on market conditions that are (made)
favourable to their needs, like the possibility to compete with higher gate fees (as a result of
a landfill ban) and probably also certain logistical requirements like a regulated buffering
capacity. For this, government intervention is required. For the decision making on
whether or not such interventions are opportune, in fact the Dutch National Waste Plan
(LAP) 3 has given the conditions: (1) smaller environmental footprint or reduced
risks/improved public health; (2) there is a market for the end-products; (3) costs do not
exceed 205 €/ton; (4) the technique is functioning properly, can deal with 75% of the total
waste supply and a plan is at hand to deal with 100% of the waste within two years.
This report has aimed to provide insight into most of the conditions that are set in LAP3.
Still, the final decision requires interpretation and weighing. How are the environmental
footprint and the risks aspects of landfill compared to those of the different techniques
discussed above, given their qualitatively different nature? And really how solid are the
business cases for these new techniques, and how big is the risk of becoming dependent on
their continuous operations while disturbing present institutional arrangements for dealing
with asbestos waste streams and their checks and balances?
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
80
This final choice is of a political nature and includes the weighing of values. Hopefully, with
the help of this report, this weighing can be done in a transparent and underpinned way.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
81
Annex 1: Analysis sheets
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
82
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
83
Analysis sheet: Landfill Table 1: Technical parameters
Parameter Value
Q34 or
scale Source no.
Treatment Mechanism Dumping asbestos waste in landfill sites35 Q 1, 2
Type of process No particular treatment; everlasting dumping site
protection
Q 3
Process time Dumping itself: minutes
Time until destruction: if destruction
occurs at all: centuries or longer
Scale: mins / hrs /days /
months / years / centuries
3
Process temperature Not applicable oC 3
Energy requirements Marginal
Energy for vehicles on dumping sites
kWh/ton 3
Input requirements /
acceptance criteria
None
All asbestos waste types are accepted.
Options: chrysotile / ‘pure,
friable’ asbestos / asbestos
cement/ asbestos containing
scrap metal / asbestos
containing soil / all ACM /
other (to be explained)
3
Pre-processing (energy)
requirements
Double bagged in conformity with
certification scheme [4]
(Big bags or container depot bags)
Options: pre-separated /
reduced in size / grinded /
milled / dried / none / other;
plus kWh/ton
1, 2, 3, 4
Additives (chemicals)
or other
None Options: reactive chemicals /
inert substances / other
Fibre destruction None Options: full destruction /
asymptotical reaction / none
/ other
1, 2, 3
Mass / volume
reduction
None
Reusability of end-
product
Asbestos is ‘filler’ of ‘landscape’.
‘Landscape’ can be used at the surface.
Options: None / inert filler /
building material (civil
engineering) / active
substance (cement, clay) /
clean soil / other
1, 3
Installation type / size ‘Dumping site’ is fixed and large scale
(but is not an installation).
Options: On site / mobile /
temporary / fixed medium
scale / fixed large scale /
other
3
Installation capacity > 100.000 tons/y < 1000, 1000 – 10.000,
10.000 – 100.000, >
100.000 tons / year
3
34 Q = qualitative 35 In Belgium friable asbestos is encapsulated into concrete before landfilling. This process is not applied in the Netherlands and is also not included in this analysis sheet.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
84
Parameter Value
Q34 or
scale Source no.
Proven technique Fully operational Options: lab scale / pilot
trials / upscaled / fully
operational
Table 2: Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Logistical aspects ACW must be double bagged and must be handled and
‘laid down’ with care.
Q 1, 3, 4
Quality Assurance (QA)
aspects (robustness et
cetera)
As long as the dumped asbestos material is not moved,
the process is robust. Landfilled ACW does not produce
gas nor leaches into groundwater.
Q 3
Risk aspects (in
relation to transport,
occupational H&S,
residents and environ-
ment, end-product,
other waste)
Measurements have never shown (release of) asbestos
fibres in the air. Trickling water has and keeps a neutral
pH value.
For occupational health reasons dragging and blowing
away of ACW must be limited to a minimum. In case of
contamination, the landfill site has to be treated as a
‘normal’ asbestos contaminated site.
Q 3
Energy balance with
replacement product
Not applicable Q
Costs in relation to
energy use
< € 10/ton Costs (in actual market
prices) in €/ton and/or
(scale): < € 10/ton; € 10 –
100/ton; € 100 – 200/ton; €
200 – 500/ton; > € 500/ton
3
Installation
investments
-
[ 2]: ‘Capital costs are zero (waste
disposed of at existing facility –
existing landfill sites’)
(Claimed) investments in €
and/or scale: < 1 million € 1
million – 20 million; > € 20
million
2, 3
(Market) value of end-
product
-
(‘Safe landscapes’ have a market
value)
(Claimed) value in €/ton
And/or (options): avoided soil
decontamination costs /
< € 10/ton / > € 10/ton
3
Other costs - Costs for land use
- ‘Raising funds (at Provincial level) for everlasting
protection (by Provincial authorities): € 0,70/ton - €
1,40/ton
- Protective foil: € 40/m2
- Labour costs et cetera
Q 3
Table 3: Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Landfill costs including the costs of everlasting protection
are covered by the gate fees. These amount from 55 to
130 € /ton (average 90 €/ton) (plus € 13/ton tax).
Q 3
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
85
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Public and
administrative
acceptance
Although there are known cases in The Netherlands
where there is little acceptance of landfill sites by the
neighbouring inhabitants, the landfill of ACW is not a
relevant factor for this.
Q 3
Potential CO2 footprint Small Options: Small / medium /
large/ very large
Actual market prices 55 to 130 € /ton (average 90 €/ton)
(plus € 13/ton tax).
Actual price in €/ton 3
Table 4: Overall assessment
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Technology readiness
level
9 Scale See above
Distance to market Already on the market on a large scale Q See above
Sustainability aspects (+): marginal energy use and small CO2 footprint; control
of logistics and occupational health and safety and
environmental risks; use of ACW as a ‘filler’ for
landscapes
(-): unreduced use of space, remaining intrinsic risks of
asbestos as well as need for ongoing control and
protection of site passed on to future generations
Q
Area of application All ACW Q
Sources
1. ‘State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and
opportunities’ (OVAM (a), 2016).
2. ‘LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste Gate B (Preferred Options) Study’. LLW
Repository Ltd., 2016, p. 72.
3. Interview met Afvalzorg, 19 januari 2018.
4. Werkveldspecifiek certificatieschema voor de Procescertificaten Asbestinventarisatie en
Asbestverwijdering, zoals opgenomen in bijlage XIIIa bij de Arbeidsomstandighedenregeling,
2017.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
86
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
87
Analysis sheet: Thermal processes
Table 1: Technical parameters
Parameter Value Q36 or scale Source no.
Treatment Mechanism At certain (higher) temperatures asbestos fibres are
unstable and naturally decompose. There are several
underlying mechanisms of thermal treatment of ACM,
sometimes chemically catalysed. With increasing
temperatures overall evaporation of adsorbed water,
dehydratation and crystallization take place [1]. This
conversion process goes through different phases, in
which different intermediate mineralogical stages are
passed.
At extreme temperatures, up to 1600 oC or even 2000 oC
all (mineral) waste – including asbestos – is converted
into a stable and homogeneous (silicate) glass. This latter
process is called ‘vitrification’.
Q 1, 3
Type of process Several types of thermal treatment processes are
distinguished (most of them semi-continuous):
Vitrification (very high temperatures to turn matter
into glass, by plasma gun [4], conventional ovens or
electric furnace (Joule heating (thermal process
involving the use of high power currents made to flow
through the material to be melted [5])/Geomelt
vitrification process [6])
Ceramitization (mixing with clay) (also: vitro-
ceramitization, with other additives)
Thermo-chemical conversion (accelerated
remineralisation process (expulsion of hydroxides) by
using a fluxing agent (e.g. borax) [7]
Thermal denaturation (heating to approx. 1000 0C,
either in an oven or by microwave
(MODYAM: lower temperatures, only chrysotile)
Treatment of asbestos containing steel scrap in steel
melting furnaces; in batches
Others:
Self-propagating temperature synthesis (SHS) (a
thermal method exploiting the highly exothermic and
fast self-propagating high-temperature reaction
between Fe2O3 and magnesium powder) [8]
Laser induced rapid melting (use of CO2 laser
irradiation for melting and decomposing [9]
Q 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9
Process time The process time ranges from minutes to
hours or even days
Scale: mins / hrs /days
/ months / years /
1, 3, 10
36 Q = qualitative
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
88
Parameter Value Q36 or scale Source no.
For denaturation: hours to days;
Infestos/Twee “R” requires 75 hours (approx.
3 days)
The treatment of asbestos containing steel
scrap in steel melting furnaces will shortly be
upscaled to industrial level; the exact melting
time will be determined during the start-up
phase (minutes or hours) [10]
centuries
Process temperature The ranges of decomposition temperatures of
different asbestos types (at which the fibre
structure is decomposed) are [11]:
– Tdecomposition (chrysotile) = 450-700°C
– Tdecomposition (crocidolite) = 400-600°C
– Tdecomposition (tremolite) = 600 - 850°C
– Tdecomposition (amosite) = 600-800°C
– Tdecomposition (anthophylite) = 620 - 960°C
– Tdecomposition (actinolite) = 950 - 1040°C
Process temperatures:
Vitrification: 1100 – 1600 0C (or even up to
20000C)
Ceramitization: 800 – 950 0C (vitro-
ceramitization: 1300 -1400 0C)
Thermo-chemical conversion: 1200 –
1250 0C
Denaturation: 1000 – 1100 0C
Steel melting: 1500 – 1700 0C
oC 1, 3, 11, 12
Energy requirements Inertam (vitrification with plasma torch):
500 à 1.300 kWh/ton
ARI Technologies Inc. – Thermo-chemical
conversion technology (TCCT): 1500 –
1600 kWh/ton (5,7 GJ/ton)
AM&P-groep – TCCT: approx. 1500
kWh/ton (natural gas)
AM&P-groep – TCCT + DTO/P2F37:
approx. 750 kWh/ton and approx. 750
kWh/ton from energy-rich waste streams
(‘sorting residue’)
For denaturation: 7 million m3 gas per year
(equals 61,5/68,4 million kWh per year (=
615/684 kWh/ton)38
kWh/ton 3, 4, 11, 13,
14
37 AM&P-Groep (the Netherlands) developed a ACW treatment concept (proof of concept) based on a combination of Thermo-chemical Conversion Technology (TCCT) and Dynamic Thermal Oxidation of energy-rich waste streams (DTO) and/or a combination of TCCT and depolymerisation (pyrolysis) of non-recyclable plastics (Plastic to Fuel process (P2F)). Both DTO and P2F are expected to provide a substantial part (up to 50%) of the TCCT energy consumption. 38 Heat of combustion of natural gas; 31,65 MJ/m3 (‘onderwaarde’) / 35.17 MJ/m3 (‘bovenwaarde’) / Conversion factor: 1 kWh = 3,6 MJ / 1 m3 natural gas = 8,8 kWh (‘onder waarde’); 1 m3 natural gas = 9,8 kWh (‘boven waarde’) (conversion efficiency (from gas to heath) is usually less than 100%)
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
89
Parameter Value Q36 or scale Source no.
PMC: 672 kWh/ton (incl. melting steel
scrap; only a (very) small portion of the
energy use is to be attributed to the
asbestos destruction)
Input requirements /
acceptance criteria
For vitrification: all ACM/acceptance
criteria: none
For thermo-chemical conversion: all ACM
(normally placed within asbestos bags) –
logistical concept of AM&P-groep is based
on 10 tons asbestos container bags [14]
For denaturation: non-friable asbestos
material (ACW) (no soil); (MODYAM: only
chrysotile)
For PMC: asbestos containing steel scrap
in containers
Options: chrysotile /
‘pure, friable’ asbestos /
asbestos cement/
asbestos containing
scrap metal / asbestos
containing soil / all
ACM / other (to be
explained)
3, 10, 14
Pre-processing
(energy) requirements
For vitrification: ‘powdered’ / particulate
material (i.e. reduced in size (shredded))
For ceramitization: other (grinding and
mixing with clay)
For thermo-chemical conversion: reduced
in size (TCCT (reduced in size (shredding))
/ TCCT + DTO/P2F (sorting and
segregating ACM in air-locked material
and reduced in size (shredding); handling
area, maintained at negative pressure)); no
data available about pre-processing energy
consumption [14]
For denaturation: none (double bagged
(standard))
For PMC: reduced in size (shredded) [12]
Options: pre-separated
/ reduced in size /
grinded / milled / dried
/ none / other; plus
kWh/ton
3, 12, 14
Additives (chemical or
other)
For vitrification: inert substance (glass
formers)
For ceramitization: inert substance (clay)
For thermo-chemical conversion: reactive
chemical (fluxing agent (e.g. borax)) - less
than 1% of the weight of the feedstock [7]
Options: reactive
chemicals / inert
substances / other
3, 6, 13
Fibre destruction With adequate temperatures and processing
times: full destruction
Options: full
destruction /
asymptotic decay of the
reaction rate / none /
other
3
Mass / volume
reduction
- Vitrification: 30 – 50% (Inertam) or 80%
(Geomelt) mass/volume reduction
- Thermo-chemical conversion: volume
reduction approx. 50% (asbestos cement)
to more than 90% (friable asbestos) and
mass reduction about 30 to 50%,
% 1, 3
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
90
Parameter Value Q36 or scale Source no.
- Other thermal techniques: > 15%
Reusability of end-
product
Reuseable products:
Vitrification: glass (e.g. Cofalit), can be
reused in low grade construction
applications (possibly substitute for quartz
and basalt in building material)
Thermo-chemical conversion: end-product
similar to coarse sand/gravel (low-grade
construction applications, not suitable for
use in high burden applications, because of
its brittle nature) /AM&P-groep: clay
substitute, ceramic products (e.g. bricks)
Ceramitization: ceramic materials,
coatings / ‘protective’ surfaces in the
building, mechanical and chemical
industries’ [3]
Denaturation: inert filler or even cement
(‘beststof’)
PMC: not certain whether the asbestos
waste is re-usable. The steel is (PMB’s
(‘Purified Metal Blocks’)); the slags can
either be used as inert fillers or will be
landfilled
Options: None39 / inert
filler / building
material (civil
engineering) / active
substance (cement,
clay) / clean soil / other
3, 7, 10,
12, 14
Installation type / size Fixed medium to large scale installations Options: On site /
mobile / temporary /
fixed medium scale /
fixed large scale / other
3
Installation capacity Inertam (vitrification with plasma torch):
7.000 à 8.000 ton/year
Vitrification with electrical furnace: up to
100 ton/day. So: 30.000 tons/year
ARI Technologies Inc. - TCCT: the tested
installation had a capacity of approx. 4500
– 5000 tons/year and is considered as the
smallest installation which is commercial
feasible)
Denaturation: expected Infestos/Twee “R”:
100.000 tons/year
Denaturation by microwave (Japan [1]): 2
ton/day, or < 1000 tons/year
PMC: projected (incl. Steel scrap): 150.000
tons/year (approx. 3.900 tons/year
asbestos)
Scale: <1.000 / 1.000 –
10.000 / 10.000 –
100.000 / > 100.000
tons/year
1, 3, 10, 12,
13
Proven technique Inertam (vitrification with plasma torch):
fully operational
Vitrification with electrical furnace: fully
Options: lab scale /
pilot trials / upscaled /
fully operational
3, 7, 10, 14
39 Strictly speaking this option disqualifies a technique, given the requirements of LAP 3 (see footnote 28).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
91
Parameter Value Q36 or scale Source no.
operational (Japan)
ARI Technologies Inc. - TCCT: pilot trials
Thermal denaturation: expected
Infestos/Twee “R”: pilot trials/upscaled
(design of an industrial installation is
ready)
Denaturation by microwave (Japan): lab
scale/pilot trials
PMC: pilot trails/upscaled (design of an
industrial installation is ready)
Table 2: Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Logistical Several thermal processes (denaturation, thermo-
chemical conversion, PMC) are geared to incinerate
packaging material (double bags) and other waste items
as well. These processes have therefore no additional
logistical requirements to the ones that are already in
place for ACM waste landfill.
Other thermal processes are less robust (MODYAM) and
require controlled input streams.
Q
Quality Assurance
(QA) aspects
(robustness et cetera)
Generally speaking for thermal processes: with adequate
control of temperatures and process time (and depending
on the type of process, also of the composition of input
waste, e.g. for vitrification), the process is highly robust.
For denaturation: Infestos/Twee “R” indicates it will take
a sample of the core of each processed wagon to ensure
complete denaturation. Also: control of composition of 1
bag per receiving load (in vacuum cabin)
(For ceramitization: no specific data)
Q 3, 10, 15
Risk aspects (in
relation to transport,
occupational H&S,
residents and environ-
ment, end-product,
other waste)
Process, especially pre-treatment (size reduction,
shredding, grinding) and if the case pre-separation, in
isolated space and with ‘negative’ pressure. For thermal
denaturation, pre-treatment is not necessary, the ACM (in
asbestos bags) goes straight into the oven.
Within isolated space: work is to be regarded as work in
asbestos contaminated area (‘working under asbestos
conditions’).
For vitrification: cooling water from plasma torch
Exhaust gases must be treated in afterburners and filtered
with HEPA filters.
For thermo-chemical treatment the exhaust gases are
routed through a secondary oxidizing unit, for the
destruction of residual organic compounds, quench-
coolers, caustic scrubbers and HEPA filtration before
Q 3, 10, 15
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
92
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
exhaust tot the atmosphere.
For the thermal denaturation process: risks of steam
explosions in case the waste is heated too fast (a (very)
wide heating period is applied).
No risks of end-product (monitoring is required; (sample-
wise) the end-product must be sampled and analysed to
confirm the absence of asbestos fibres).
Energy balance with
replacement product
In case the end-product is steel scrap the energy
consumption is hardly higher than when asbestos free
steel scrap is melted. Compared to the recycling of
asbestos-free steel scrap or the production of steel from
ore the energy consumption is largely the same. For all
other thermal techniques the energy consumption is
somewhat compensated, a little bit more for active fillers,
cement or substitutes for clay.
Using energy obtained from burning energy rich waste,
an option for thermo-chemical treatment, the balance
shifts slightly in a positive direction.
Q 15
Costs in relation to
energy use
The costs in relation to the energy use
of thermal treatment techniques
(rough estimation) can be classified in
the range from € 10 to 100/ton.
Costs calculations, based on the
reported energy consumption per ton
ACM (see energy parameter) and large
user tariffs40, show that the energy
costs for vitrification and thermo-
chemical conversion are almost the
same (€ 50 to 100/ton ACM). The cost
range for thermal denaturation is € 20
to 40/ton ACM. PMC requires € 35 to
55/ton steel scrap, of which a small
part can be assigned to the destruction
of ACM.
Costs (in actual market prices)
in €/ton and/or (scale): < €
10/ton; € 10 – 100/ton; € 100
– 200/ton; € 200 – 500/ton;
> € 500/ton
Installation
investments
TCCT (27 tons ACW/day): € 3,87
million
TCCT (45 tons ACW/day): € 5,16
million
TCCT - AM&P-groep: 80 tons/day
installation): € 8,5 million (CAPEX)
TCCT + DTO/P2F - AM&P-groep:
80 tons/day installation): € 12,4
million (CAPEX)
Infestos/Twee “R”: € 23 million
(Claimed) investments in €
and/or scale: < 1 million € 1
million – 20 million; > € 20
million
3, 14
40 Business user tariffs 2017 (CBS, the Netherlands), including taxes, excluding VAT: Natural gas - EUR 8,961/GJ (large business user) - EUR 15,282/GJ (business user) Electricity - EUR 0,054/kWh (large business user) - EUR 0,079/kWh (business user)
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
93
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
(Market) value of end-
product
Market price of Cofalit (from
vitrification at Inertam): € 10 / ton
- TCCT: no market values are
reported
TCCT - AM&P-groep: business cases
are based on ‘zero value’ of the end-
product (possibly in the long term a
fee per brick in case of clay
substitute)
For treated asbestos containing steel
scrap the market value of the end-
product mainly concerns the market
price for recycled steel.
(Claimed) value in €/ton
And/or (options): avoided soil
decontamination costs /
< € 10/ton / > € 10/ton
3, 14
Other costs Not available Q
Table 3: Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Financial risks and
securities; business case
Vitrification: business case appears to be related to
high gate fees of nuclear and highly toxic waste.
Thermo-chemical conversion (ARI Technologies Inc.):
no data
Thermo-chemical conversion (AM&P-groep): business
case (TCCT) is built on higher gate fee than of landfill
(therefore dependent on landfill ban), (delivery
guarantee), gate fee > € 175, exclusive costs for (initial)
buffering capacity.
Thermo-chemical conversion (AM&P-groep): business
case (TCCT +DTO/P2F) is built on higher gate fee than
of landfill (therefore dependent on landfill ban),
(delivery guarantee), gate fee > € 135 exclusive costs
for (initial) buffering capacity (including gate fee of
energy-rich waste stream).
For thermal denaturation: business case is built on
higher gate fee than of landfill (therefore dependent on
landfill ban), gate fee > € 175 and (initial) buffering
capacity.
For PMC: business case is related to economic value of
steel, negative market value of AC steel scrap and
equally costly/high energy level of production of steel
from ore.
Q 3, 9, 14
Public acceptance and
administrative
acceptance
Little data.
AM&P-groep claims: public acceptance is related to
choice of location, suitable for heavy industry, the
government could play a promotive role in using
‘asbestos’ bricks, housing associations have the
intention to use bricks made from ACW of their
asbestos remediation projects, independent test results
can support applying the end-product as clay
Q 10, 14
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
94
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
substitute.
PMC claims public acceptance is related to choice of
location (not too close to inhabited areas, suitable for
heavy industry), commitment of authorities and
energy supply with the appropriate capacity at close
range.
Potential CO2 footprint Thermal destruction of asbestos waste
needs a relative high amount of energy
(500 to 1500 kWh/ton) and therefore
has a (relative) large potential CO2
footprint.
The equivalent CO2-emission41 for the
above energy consumption range:
- (natural gas): 105 – 325 kg CO2/ton
- (electricity): 325 – 975 kg CO2/ton
Processing 1 ton of ACM by thermal
denaturation (Infestos/Twee “R”) is
equivalent to a CO2 emission of approx.
130 kg CO2 (7 million m3 natuaral gas
per year and a production of 100.000
ton ACM/year)
Processing 1 ton of ACM by thermal
treatment is equivalent to:
2 - 7% (natural gas) or 7 - 22%
(electricity) of the annual energy
consumption (natural gas and
electricity)42 of an average NL
household. Using thermal
denaturation demands approx. 3% of
the annual energy consumption of an
average NL household.
Options: Small / medium
/large / very large
16
Actual market prices Inertam (vitrification with plasma gun): € 1.000 – €
2.500 / ton; average € 1.500 / ton
For ceramitization: no data
Thermo-chemical conversion ARI technologies Inc.
(TCCT): € 370 / ton (27 tons ACW/day) - € 270 / ton
(45 tons ACW/day)
Thermo-chemical conversion AM&P-Groep: € 175 /
ton (80 tons ACW/day)
TCCT + DTO/P2F - AM&P-Groep: € 135 / ton (80 tons
ACW/day) (including gate fee for the ‘sorter residue’)
For denaturation: claim by Infestos/Twee “R”: € 175 /
Actual
price in
€/ton
3, 10, 14,
17
41 Source: www.milieubarometer.nl – Actuele CO2-parameters – 2018 en verder: electricity 0,649 kg CO2/kWh; natural gas 1,89 kg CO2/m3 (also see footnote 38: 1 m3 natural gas is equivalent to approx. 8,8 – 9,8 kWh) 42 Annual average energy consumption of private homes in the Netherlands (2016) is 1300 m3 of natural gas and 2910 kWh (Source: CBS: Energieverbruik particulier woningen; woningtype en regio’s). This energy use is equivalent to approx. 4500 kg CO2 (55% natural gas and 45% electricity).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
95
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
ton; claim by AsbestEx-System GmbH: € 520 / ton.
Melting steel/PMC: business case is based on present
gate fees for landfill of ACW (on average € 90 / ton
plus taxes).
Table 4: Overall assessment
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Technology readiness
level
Vitrification: TRL 9
(Europlasma group / Inertam: vitrification with plasma
gun in operation; vitrification with electrical furnace
called ‘best ‘demonstrated available technology’ by
EPA)
Ceramitization: TRL 4
Thermo-chemical conversion – ARI Technologies Inc.:
TRL 7
Thermal denaturation: TRL 9
Thermal denaturation with microwave: TRL 5 (or 7)
Melting steel/PMC: TRL 8
Self-propagating high temperature synthesis (SHS):
TRL 5
Laser induced rapid melting: TRL 3
All techniques are patented.
Scale 1, 3, 10, 14
Distance to market Distance to market is small and depends largely on non-
technical issues.
For denaturation to come on the market, the right
conditions have to be in place in terms of gate fee
(made possible by a landfill ban) and (at first) buffering
/ storing capacity (small distance to market but not
easy to overcome).
For vitrification something similar applies, but
probably with higher gate fees that can only be justified
in cases of nuclear or highly toxic waste (big distance to
market).
For thermo-chemical conversion a definitive proof of
operation and of the quality of the end-product is still
required. Once this has been obtained, investment
planning can start. The possibility to compete with a
higher gate fee (made possible by a landfill ban) and a
steady flow of feedstock are essential (the distance to
market is rather small but a little bigger than for
thermal denaturation).
For steel scrap the distance to market is mostly
determined by the installation’s construction time
(distance to market is very small).
Q (see above)
Sustainability aspects (+) complete fibre destruction, reusable end-products
(+) the quality and the effectiveness of the process can be
controlled, monitored and inspected robustly on the basis
Q (see above)
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
96
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
of a few process parameters.
(+) compensation of the CO2 footprint by the use of the
end-product, somewhat for thermo-chemical conversion
and thermal denaturation, and large for processing of
steel scrap).
(+) compensation of CO2 footprint by using energy
obtained from burning of energy rich waste (Dutch
proposal for thermo-chemical conversion).
(-) high energy use (500 to 1500 kWh/ton and a
potentially large CO2 footprint
(-) the extra handling and logistic that are required for
thermal treatment (pre-separation of ACM waste streams,
size reduction, shredding, grinding) require extra energy
and produce some additional risks for occupational health
and safety and the environment. This is to a lesser extent
the case for thermal denaturation, where no pre-
processing is required.
(-) all thermal techniques produce exhaust gases that
must be treated and controlled before emission to the
environment.
Area of application For vitrification: all ACW (including highly
problematic waste (toxic, radio-active)
For thermo-chemical conversion (combined with DTO
and P2F techniques): all ACM except soil (preferable
no metals (removed by pre-separation)
and high-energy waste, including asbestos containing
floor cover and floor tiles, for the DTO and P2F
techniques to produce thermal energy for the thermo-
chemical conversion process . The DTO and P2F
techniques are a kind of pre-processing for asbestos
containing floor cover and floor tiles.
For thermal denaturation: a constant and
homogeneous stream of ACM (asbestos cement
(corrugated) sheets or pipes (non-friable asbestos
material (ACW) (no soil); (MODYAM: only
chrysotile)
For steel melting/PMC: AC steel scrap
Q (see above)
Sources
1. Spasiano, D. and F. Pirozzi: ‘Treatments of asbestos containing wastes’. In: Journal of
Environmental Management 204, 2017, pp. 82 – 91.
2. Kusiorowski, R., T. Zaremba, J. Piotrowski and J. Adamek: ‘Thermal decomposition of
different types of asbestos’. In: Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. Volume 109,
2012, pp 693–704.
3. OVAM (a): State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints
and opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
4. Heberlein, J, A.B. Murphy: ‘Thermal plasma waste treatment’. In: Journal of Physics D
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
97
Applied Physics, 2008, pp. 1-20.
5. Dellisanti, F., P. I. Rossi, G. Valdrè, ‘Remediation of asbestos containing materials by Joule
heating vitrification performed in a pre-pilot apparatus’. In: Int J. Miner. Process. 91, 2009,
pp 61 – 67.
6. Finucane, K. G., L.E. Thompson, T. Abuku, H. Nakauchi: ‘Treatment of Asbestos Wastes Using
the Geomelt Vitrification Process’. In conference notes (abstract #8261) of: WM 2008
Conference, 2008, Phoeniz, AZ.
7. Downey, A., D. M. Timmons, ‘Study into the applicability of thermochemical conversion
technology to legacy asbestos wastes in the UK’, In: Conference paper of the WM’05
Conference Tucson AZ, 2005.
8. Gaggero, L., V. Caratto and M. Ferretti: ‘Self-Sustained Combustion Synthesis and Asbestos-
Bearing Waste: Scaling Up From Laboratory Towards Pre-Industrial Size Plant’. In: Energy
Procedia 97, 2016, pp. 515 – 522.
9. Fujishige, M., N. Tamura, I Karasawa and A. Kojima: ‘Detoxification of asbestos by laser-
induced rapid melting.’ In: The Gunma-Kohsen Review, no. 33, 2014, pp. 85 – 90.
10. Appendix report – Appendix to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques – Part 2 Interview reports: Gespreksaantekeningen Purified Metal
Company (in Dutch).
11. Gomez, E., A. Rani, C. Cheeseman, D. Deegan, M. Wise, A. Boccaccini: ‘Thermal plasma
technology for the treatment of wastes: A critical review’. In: Journal of Hazardous Materials
161, 2009, pp. 614–626.
12. Royal Haskoning DHV: ‘Milieueffectrapportage PMC – bijlage 1 behorend bij aanvraag
omgevingsvergunning’. 2017, versie0.4/Finale versie (Referentie: I&BBE9880-103-
100R002FO.4).
13. ARI Technologies Inc., ‘Ten-Day Asbestos Destruction Demonstration using Thermochemical
Conversion Technology – Final Report’, 2007.
14. Appendix report – Appendix to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques – Part 2 Interview reports: Gespreksaantekeningen AM&P-groep (in
Dutch).
15. Appendix report – Appendix to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques – Part 2 Interview reports: Gespreksaantekeningen Infestos Nederland
BV / Twee “R” Recycling groep BV (in Dutch).
16. CBS Energieverbruik particulier woningen; woningtype en regio’s (2016)
https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/81528NED/table?dl=5A22.
17. Balaz, P., E. Dutkova: ‘Fine milling in applied mechanochemistry’. In: Miner. Eng., 2009, 22
(7), pp. 681-694.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
98
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
99
Analysis sheet: Chemical processes Table 1: Technical parameters
Parameter Value Q43 or scale Source no.
Treatment Mechanism Chemical decomposition mechanisms can be divided
into the following categories:
Acid* decomposition using strong acids
(dehydration) Alkaline* decomposition Specific decomposition of amphibole asbestos using
chelates (such as citrate (citric acid), oxalate (oxalic
acid), ascorbate (ascorbic acid) and ethylene
diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) Acid* decomposition using weak acids Carbon dioxide capturing / Mineral carbonation –
The process is based on acid-base reactions in which
carbonate acid is neutralized by a base (alkaline
mineral) - (Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3 CO2 → 3 MgCO3 + 2
SiO2 + 2 H2O) - at natural conditions a slow process)
*) all acid or alkaline reaction products must be
neutralized to obtain a reusable end-product
Q
1, 3, 4, 7, 8
6
3
4
1, 3, 4, 5
14, 15
5, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 17
Type of process Chemical decomposition of asbestos fibres Q all
Process time Varies from hrs to days, depending on
the chosen process and the type of
ACM processed
Scale: mins / hrs /days /
months / years / centuries
1, 4, 5
Process temperature Varying from room temperature to 500
0C, depending on process. Some
processes are exothermic.
oC 1, 5
Energy requirements 10 – 200 kWh/ton*
*) Chemical processes for asbestos
destruction can be combined with other
waste streams from industry such as
acid waste, alkaline waste or CO2 which
can have advantages for disposal costs,
energy consumption and
environmental benefits. Some
processes can be exothermic (energy
consumption for a standby cooling
unit).
kWh/ton 1, 4, 5
Input requirements /
acceptance criteria
Pure friable asbestos insulation
materials as well as asbestos
cementproducts. Not suited for very
heterogenic asbestos containing
materials (ACM) such as bagged
building materials contaminated with
Options: chrysotile / ‘pure,
friable’ asbestos / asbestos
cement/ asbestos containing
scrap metal / asbestos
containing soil / all ACM /
other (to be explained)
4
43 Q = qualitative
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
100
Parameter Value Q43 or scale Source no.
small amounts of asbestos and asbestos
contaminated metal scrap.
Pre-processing
(energy) requirements
Grinded. Available free surface
dominates reaction kinetics. Bagged
products must be unpacked first.
Options: pre-separated /
reduced in size / grinded /
milled / dried / none /
other; plus kWh/ton
Additives (chemicals)
or other
Acid for destruction of asbestos, for
destruction of amphiboles chelate
forming additives are needed.
Options: reactive chemicals
/ inert substances / other
Fibre destruction Full destruction for pure chrysotile.
Complete destruction of amphibole
asbestos fibres require additional use
of chelates
For asbestos cement products the
available surface (pre-grinding)
dominates reaction kinetics and
therefore the reaction time needed for
complete decomposition.
An asymptotic decay of the reaction
rate is expected.
Complete destruction of the asbestos
fibres must be proved by ‘state of the
art’ analytical techniques (see also
quality assurance aspects).
Options: full destruction /
asymptotic decay of the
reaction rate / none / other
1, 3
Mass / volume
reduction
No data %
Reusability of end-
product
Inert filler for cement production, bulk
chemicals and other low-grade end-
products (after optimizing the chemical
processes)
Options: None44 / inert filler
/ building material (civil
engineering) / active
substance (cement, clay) /
clean soil / other
4
Installation type / size Fixed medium scale or fixed large scale Options: On site / mobile /
temporary / fixed medium
scale / fixed large scale /
other
1, 4
Installation capacity 10.000 - 100.000 tons/year depending
on plant capacity
Scale: <1.000 / 1.000 –
10.000 / 10.000 – 100.000
/ > 100.000 tons/year
Proven technique Pilot trial(s) (for chrysotile) Options: lab scale / pilot
trials / upscaled / fully
operational
4
44 Strictly speaking this option disqualifies a technique, given the requirements of LAP 3 (see footnote 21).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
101
Table 2: Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Logistical If the process installation is built near chemical
plant, transport of chemicals can be limited.
Extra transport of asbestos waste is required in
case of central locations (elsewhere and fewer
than landfill sites). Transport of chemicals and/or
asbestos products shall be reduced to obtain
maximum safety.
Q 4
Quality Assurance (QA)
aspects (robustness et
cetera)
Conversion rate of the asbestos as well as other
crucial parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure,
pH, concentration of reactants, irregularities in
the ACM composition) must be monitored during
the process. Complete fibre destruction must be proved by
‘state of the art’ analytical techniques.
The need to develop a standardized analytical
method (a combination of different analytical
techniques) to demonstrate being “asbestos safe”
or preferably "asbestos free"of the end-product
was discussed at the meeting of the ISO Working
Group TC146 / SC3 / WG1 .The intention is to
pick this up as a new work item during the
upcoming meeting (Sidney, 2018). In time process certification can be considered
Q 1, 2, 4
Risk aspects (in
relation to transport,
occupational H&S,
residents and environ-
ment, end-product,
other waste)
A covered storage site is required to store a buffer
stock of asbestos containing materials Storage tanks of waste chemicals (acids, alkaline
solutions et cetera) shall meet all requirements
for occupational and environmental safety All pre-treatments such as grinding, unpacking
bags et cetera must be carried out in a closed
system (screened room with ‘negative’ pressure)
to avoid emission of airborne asbestos fibres Transport of chemicals and/or asbestos products
shall be reduced to obtain maximum safety. There is a risk of corrosion of the pipe linings of
the reactor
Q 4
Energy balance with
replacement product
Research is aimed at producing reusable end-
product (inert filler, bulk chemicals or other low-
grade end-products). Reusable end-products
contribute to energy compensation to a modest
extent.
Q
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
102
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Costs in relation to
energy use
€ 100 – 200/ton but will depend on
choices made. Cost will be reduced if
combined with other waste streams, such
as industrial acid waste and/or CO2
capture. Prevents required neutralization
of acid industrial waste.
Costs (in actual market
prices) in €/ton and/or
(scale): < € 10/ton; € 10
– 100/ton; € 100 –
200/ton; € 200 –
500/ton; > € 500/ton
4, 5
Installation
investments
No data (Claimed) investments in
€ and/or scale: < 1
million € 1 million – 20
million; > € 20 million
(Market) value of end-
product
< € 10/ton (filler) (Claimed) value in €/ton
And/or (options): avoided
soil decontamination
costs / < € 10/ton / > €
10/ton
Other costs No data Q
Table 3: Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Financial risks and securities;
business case
The business case is built on the combination
of the asbestos destruction process with the
disposal of other hazardous waste streams,
such as industrial acid waste and/or CO2
capture.
A chemical treatment process can be
competitive with (more expensively prized)
regular landfill. At this moment costs for
regular landfill (gate fee) in NL vary from 55 to
130 €/ton depending from (average 90). The
landfill rate depends on regional policy and
policy views of the ministry.
Q 4
Public and administrative
acceptance
Hardly any data, but it is expected to depend on
the location chosen. A location close to an
industrial plant using other waste streams, public
acceptance might be easier. An environmental
impact study is required.
Q
Potential CO2 footprint Medium
(if combined with waste acid
stream.)
Options: Small / medium
/large /very large
Actual market prices Process costs (acid treatment
process) are estimated at € 125,-/
ton.
Actual price in €/ton 4
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
103
Table 4: Overall assessment
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Technology readiness level
(see table 1)
Acid decomposition using strong acids: 3 - 5
Alkaline decomposition: 2 - 4
Specific decomposition of amphibole asbestos
using chelates (such as citrate, oxalate,
ascorbate and EDTA): 2 - 4
Acid decomposition using weak acids: 3 – 5
Carbon capture / mineral carbonation: 2 - 4
Scale
Distance to market Big/medium - Both technical issues (reusability
of the end-product, the purity of the used
chemicals, the destruction of amphiboles and the
upscaling from lab to semi industrial size) and
non-technical issues (drafting a business case,
financing, environmental impact study and
request for permits) still need to be solved.
Q
Sustainability aspects Low energy consumption (relative to thermal
treatment), complete fibre destruction
(chrysotile), processing ‘waste with waste’
(combination of (industrial) waste streams, risks
of process disturbance by irregularities in ACM
supply, chemical process with intrinsic risks
(especially alkaline processes (NaOH) and strong
and corrosive processes (HF)), necessity of
neutralisation of the end-product and reusability
of the end-product still has to be proved.
Q
Area of application Homogeneous stream of asbestos cement
(chrysotile) or friable asbestos, process combined
with acid waste.
Q
Sources
1. OVAM (a): State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and
opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
2. LLW Repository Ltd, 2016: LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste, Gate B (Preferred
Options) Study. Holmrook, Cumbria UK, NWP-REP-106 issue 1, 2016.
3. Spasiano, D. and F. Pirozzi: ‘Treatments of asbestos containing wastes’. In: Journal of
Environmental Management 204, 2017, pp. 82 – 91.
4. Appendix report – Appendix to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste treatment
techniques – Part 2 Interview reports Interview met Deltalinqs, team project Asbeter.
5. Trapasso, F., D. Croci, P. Plescia, E. Tempesta: ‘Asbestos waste carbonation: a new asbestos
treatment with CO2 recovery’. In: Conference Paper of 3rd International Conference on Industrial
and Hazardous Waste management, Crete, 2012.
6. Asbestos degradation process with alkali metal hydroxides, European Patent, EP1671682A1, 2006
7. Pawelczyk, A., F. Bozek, K. Graba, J. Checemanowski: ‘Chemical elimination of the harmful
properties of asbestos from military’. In: Waste management, 2017, 61: pp. 377-385.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
104
8. Sugama, T., R. Sabatini, L. Petrakis: ‘Decomposition of Chrysotile Asbestos by Fluorsulfonic Acid’.
In: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1998, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 79-88.
9. Bodor, M., R.M. Santos, T. van Gerven, M. Vlad: ‘Recent developments ad perspectives on the
treatment of industrial wastes by mineral carbonation – a review’. In: Central European Journal
of Engineering, 2013, pp. 566-584.
10. O Conner, W.K., D.C. Dahlin, D.N. Nilsen, G. E. Rush, R.P. Walters, P.C. Turner: ‘Carbon dioxide
Sequestration by Direct Mineral Carbonation: Results from Recent Studies and Current Status’,
2000 (approx.), Albany Research Center Office of Fossil Energy, USDOE 1450 Queen Ave SW
Albany, OR 97321.
11. Veetil, S. P., G. Mercier, J.F. Blais, E. Cecchi, S. Kentish: ‘CO2 Sequestration by Direct Dry Gas-
solid Contact of Serpentine Mining Residues: A Solution for Industrial CO2 Emission’. In:
International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Remediation, 2014, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp.
52-58.
12. Yoon, S., Y. Roh: ‘Carbon sequestration using asbestos-containing slate waste: detoxification of
asbestos and carbonate mineralization’. In: Mineralogical Magazine, Goldschmidt 2012
Conference Abstracts, 2012, pp. 2576.
13. Radvanec, M., L. Tucek, J. Derco, K. Cechovska, Z. Németh: ‘Change of carcinogenic chrysotile
fibers in the asbestos cement (eternit) to harmless waste by artificial carbonatization: Petrological
and technological results’. In: Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2013, Volumes 252-253, pp. 390-
400.
14. Turci, F., M. Colonna, M. Tomatis, S. Mantegna, G. Cravotto and B. Fubini: ‘New Detoxification
Processes for Asbestos Fibers in the Environment’. In: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part A. 2010, 73:5-6, pp. 368 – 377.
15. Rozalen, M. and F. J. Huertas: ‘Comparative effect of chrysotile leaching in nitric, sulfuric and
oxalic acids at room temperature’. In: Chemical Geology, 2013, 352: pp. 134-142.
16. Balducci, G., E. Foresti, M. Lelli, I.G. Lesci, M. Marchtti, F. Pierini, N. Roveri (inventors): ‘Process
for treating an asbestos containing material’, 2012, European Patent Application, EP 2 428 254
A1.
17. Pan, S-Y., E.E. Chang, P-C. Chiang: ‘CO2 Capture by Accelerated Carbonation of Alkaline Wastes:
A Review on Its Principles and Applications’. In: Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 2012, 12: pp.
770 – 791.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
105
Analysis sheet: Mechanical processes Table 1: Technical parameters
Parameter Value Q45 or scale Source no.
Treatment Mechanism The mechanisms behind mechanical (mechano-chemical)
treatment of ACM is the complete crystallographic
transformation of asbestos (structural destruction by
mechanical energy).
The mechanical energy transferred to the ACM systems is
partly converted into heat and partly utilised to cause
fractures, compression and slips at macro-meso and
microscopic levels, affecting the crystalline structure of
the solid material [4]. The main stress types applied are
compression, shear (attrition), impact (stroke) and
impact (collision) [6].
The mechano-chemical process on a mineral grain
follows ideally a sequence of the following events: plastic
deformation, increase in internal stress (crystal lattice is
permanently deformed), micro plastic deformation and
fracture (division of the grain) [4].
Q 4, 6
Type of process Mechanical (mechano-chemical) treatment of ACM
means high-energy milling or ultra-grinding based on
high-energy collisions between grinding media (rings,
rollers, balls, hammers, etc.) and the asbestos containing
powders [5]. A practical example of this treatment
technique is Mechano-Chemical Destruction (MCDTM) by
Environmental Decontamination Europe LTD (EDL) –
continuous ball-milling system (pilot scale/semi-
industrial scale) [7, 8]. The performance of the process is
optimized by fine-tuning of milling parameters such as
[9]:
number, size and hardness of the balls;
hardness and construction of the rotating mixing rods;
balancing the multi-stacked reactor vessels for
maximum capacity as well as complete destruction of
asbestos
Note: The practical information below relates to an
important extent to EDL’s MCDTM process. This process
is demonstrated on a semi-industrial scale and, in terms
of scale, it is well ahead of the large number of laboratory
experiments that are reported in literature.
Q 5, 7, 8, 9
Process time 4 – 12 minutes (100% destruction) Scale: mins / hrs /days /
months / years / centuries
7, 8
Process temperature Although ball milling can be performed
at relatively low temperatures (i.e. 25oC
to 150oC), the internal temperatures of
milled matrices can exceed several
oC 7, 8
45 Q = qualitative
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
106
Parameter Value Q45 or scale Source no.
thousand degrees Celsius for very short
periods of time (10-3s to 10-4s). This
concept is often referred to as the
‘hotspot’ theory [7].
The low temperature of the ACM
matrix (160 – 200 0C) is due to MCD
mechano-chemical reaction, which
uses the mechanical energy of ball to
ball and ball to surface collisions to
initiate crystalline fracture and
amorphisation [8].
Energy requirements Information about the energy
consumption, including the energy
consumption related to pre-treatment
(drying, size reduction and emission
control), is one of the expected results
of the March 2018 (ACM-) tests in New
Zealand.
The MCDTM reactor drums are driven
by 55 kW motors. A full scale
continuous system can be consisting of
10 reactors.
Additional power will be required for
crushing, drying and emission control
systems [8].
EDL quantified the power
requirements for a full scale
contaminated soil processing plant (10
reactors: 2 towers of 5 cascading
reactors). They expect an equivalent
operational power consumption for a
full-scale ACM treatment plan. The
total power required for the reactors
and ancillary apparatus is approx. 700
kW (10 reactors: 73%; drying 25%
(soil); crushing: 1,5%; other: 0,5%).
The expected power for drying ACM to
a moisture content of 1% (w/w) is ≤
15% [10]. The capacity of a full scale
continuous system (10 reactors) is 10
tons of ACM per hour. The energy use
is in the order of 60 - 70 kWh/ton.
kWh/ton 8, 10
Input requirements /
acceptance criteria
MCD is an indiscriminate process
capable of destroying all types of
asbestos (screening of the input
material). EDL’s trials to date have
focussed on asbestos cement products
containing chrysotile and crocidolite.
Asbestos cement roofing can be
contaminated with organic material
Options: chrysotile / ‘pure,
friable’ asbestos / asbestos
cement/ asbestos containing
scrap metal / asbestos
containing soil / all ACM /
other (to be explained)
7, 9
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
107
Parameter Value Q45 or scale Source no.
like mosses and lichens.
AC-sheets are mostly delivered in
polythene bags. The reactor can deal
with such pre-processed organic
materials. This was proven before on
projects (United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and Global
Environmental Facility (GEF)) dealing
with contaminated soil ((persistent)
organic contaminants like PCB’s,
Pesticides and Dioxins) [7] .
Pre-processing (energy)
requirements
Adequately pre-conditioning of double
bagged (standard) ACM prior to
feeding the material through the
reactor stack. ACM would need to be
dried to less than 1% (w/w) moisture
and crushed to fragments less than 10
mm in length and width.
Pre-processing will be fully automated
in the final installation.
The energy use for drying and crushing
is in the order of 10 - 20 kWh/ton.
Options: pre-separated /
reduced in size / grinded /
milled / dried / none / other;
plus kWh/ton
9, 10
Additives (chemicals)
or other
No additives are used Options: reactive chemicals /
inert substances / other
Fibre destruction Laboratory scale trials carried out by
the Italian National Research Council
(2003 & 2011) revealed rapid asbestos
degradation, reaching 100%
destruction in 4-12 minutes. The
results of these lab scale trials were
replicated by EDL in pilot trials
conducted in 2015 and 2016.
Options: full destruction /
asymptotic decay of the
reaction rate / none / other
4, 5, 7, 8, 9
Mass / volume
reduction
Lab scale: mass reduction 20 - 60 % % 4
Re-usability of end-
product
The end-product of these processes are
asbestos free powders which could be
reused for the preparation of mortars
with mechanical properties better than
those obtained from lime-pozzolana
conglomerates [5].
The reuse of post-milled powders in
the mineral component in building
materials has been investigated.
Published evidence shows that
asbestos-free milled powders are
suitable for use in a variety of civil
engineering applications, specifically
Options: None47 / inert filler /
building material (civil
engineering) / active
substance (cement, clay) /
clean soil / other
5, 9, 10
47 Strictly speaking this option disqualifies a technique, given the requirements of LAP 3 (see footnote 21).
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
108
Parameter Value Q45 or scale Source no.
cements and mortars (exceptional
high-grade cement additive, notably
increasing the durability and strength
of concrete). The powdered end-
product has been used already in
practice:
Production of pavers in Belgium
(replacement of CaCO3)
As a blend in paver stones
As EPC special cement product with
Portland cement - EMC Sweden
uses the product and it fit also in
the Dutch “Beton-akkoord”46
Installation type / size Small and transportable plants (to be
applied on industrial scale because of
its advantages (fast and economic
process, (extremely) limited gas and
dust pollutions) [3].
The only full-scale ACM destruction
technology using ball-milling. Further
full-scale trials are being prepared and
will commence in March 2018 [9].
The type / size of an MCD installation
can be varied dependent the expected
processing capacity, ACM type, pre-
processing requirements et cetera. The
MCD technology is adaptable, with the
capability of setting bespoke systems
dependent on the project.
A complete 3-reactor system fits into a
standard size sea container.
Options: On site / mobile /
temporary / fixed medium
scale / fixed large scale /
other
3, 9
Installation capacity MCD-installation has a capacity up to
10 tons of ACM per hour per multi-
stack reactor – full scale continuous
system consisting of 10 MCD reactors
(approx. 25.000 tons/year – 300
days/year – 8 hours/day). The
processing capacity can be further
upscaled by:
• adjusting the number of reactors in
a tower;
• increasing the overall number of
towers in an operational plant;
• bespoke tuning of milling
parameters
The March 2018 trials will give actual
Scale: <1.000 / 1.000 –
10.000 / 10.000 – 100.000 /
> 100.000 tons/year
7, 8, 9
46 A partnership between public and private parties aimed at making the concrete sector (‘betonketen’) more sustainable (https://mvonederland.nl/betonakkoord)
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
109
Parameter Value Q45 or scale Source no.
information about the flow rate.
Proven technique The MCD-process has been
demonstrated on a semi-industrial
scale. The performance has been
proven by state of the art analytical
techniques.
Options: lab scale / pilot
trials / upscaled / fully
operational
9
Table 2: Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Logistical aspects ACM will be sealed (bagged) and transported as per
conventional methods. (Additional screening of the input
material will be required to adequately understand
asbestos composition (%)). These bags will be weighed
and placed on a conveyor leading into a sealed warehouse
where ACM drying, crushing, and conditioning takes
place. The resultant material from pre-processing will
feed directly into the MCD reactor tower, where fibrous
asbestos degradation takes place. Collection of the end-
product will be controlled to minimise dust emissions,
and samples will be taken for analysis.
Q 7, 8, 9
Quality Assurance
(QA) aspects
(robustness et cetera)
MCD (EDL): Quality Assurance (QA) will be a part of the
full MCD process, including pre-processing. Additionally,
screening of the input material will be required to
adequately understand asbestos composition (%). The
system will comprise air emission/dust control, on-site air
monitoring and noise /vibration control.
The end-product will be sent for laboratory analysis
(SEM, XRD), in accordance with country specific
hazardous waste regulations. Re-processing will be
carried out if required. After certification of the process
re-processing should no longer be necessary.
Due to the relative simplicity of the technology the
process is robust. The installation is modular build-up
and it concerns (relatively) closed system operation. In
case one side of the rotor blade starts getting worn (after
more than 1000 hours of operation) the direction of
rotation of the reactor motor is changed. The reactors can
be cleaned by flushing using water.
Q 8, 9
Risk aspects (in
relation to transport,
occupational H&S
residents and environ-
ment, end-product,
other waste)
Gas and dust pollutions from mechano-chemical reactors
are (extremely) limited, because operations are restricted
in a close and limited environment and does not use
thermal equipment. In continuous industrial reactors,
which allow an airflow inside the system to accelerate the
processes, a treatment of the exit gasses must be carried
out in order to remove the suspended asbestos fibres and
other fine dust particles [3, 4].
The overall level of risk associated with the processing of
ACM can be adequately controlled using standard
Q 3, 4, 8, 9
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
110
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
occupational H&S handling requirements. The only time
at which any site worker will encounter untreated ACM
would be when loading bagged bulk material into the
enclosed pre-processing system for drying and crushing.
Reactor design encapsulates all materials so in the event
of any failure, ACM would be ‘trapped’ inside the reactor.
No requisite for harmful additives or toxic solvents. Easy
plant establishment and decommissioning of plant.
Simple operation, i.e. not requiring complex start-up and
shutdown procedures.
The end-product shows no fibrous morphology, and
therefore no carcinogenic risk factors. No hazardous
forms of respirable silica will be formed. All silica is
converted to an amorphous habit. Standard precautions
measures will be taken to prevent exposure to respirable
inert dust [8, 9].
The system will comprise:
• Air emission / dust control
• On-site air monitoring
• Noise / vibration control
Energy balance with
replacement product
The avoided CO2 emission depends on the type of
material that can be replaced by the end-product. As
substitute for cement the avoided CO2 emission is in the
range of 390 - 820 kg CO2/ton48. For concrete mortar, a
mixture of cement, gravel, fillers and additives the
avoided CO2 emission is in the range of 40 - 140 kg
CO2/ton.
The production of 1 ton of MCD-end-product requires
approx. 60 - 70 kWh or 40 - 45 kg CO2 (based on: 1 kWh
(electricity) is equivalent to 0,65 kg CO2/kWh). The
energy balance with the (example) replacement product
seems to be positive.
Q
Costs in relation to
energy use
No data: The results of March 2018
MCD-trials will detail a range of
information, including the cost of
energy per ton.
A rough estimate of the cost of energy
per ton, based on the energy
consumption mentioned above and an
indication of the Dutch large customer
electricity tariffs, is < € 10/ton.
Costs (in actual market
prices) in €/ton and/or
(scale): < € 10/ton; € 10 –
100/ton; € 100 – 200/ton; €
200 – 500/ton; > € 500/ton
9
Installation
investments
From an economic point of view, the
investment cost of an industrial ball
milling plant can be derived from that
of similar plants used in other
environmental applications. This cost
(Claimed) investments in €
and/or scale: < 1 million € 1
million – 20 million; > € 20
million
5, 8, 9
48 Source: https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2018/02/GER-waarden%2520en%2520CO2-lijst%2520-%2520februari%25202018.xlsx
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
111
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
is orders of magnitude less than
thermal or chemical based inertisation
systems [5].
The overall capital expenditure of an
MCDTM installation is approximately €
6 million. This would consist of a full
processing unit, including a multi-
stack reactor tower (exclusive of
conditioning and auxiliary equipment,
including air emission equipment).
(Market) value of end-
product
The market value of the previous
mentioned applications of the end-
product are:
• Production of pavers in Belgium
(replacement of CaCO3): approx. €
5 à 10 per ton
• Blend-in in paver stones: approx. €
25 à 30 per ton
• End-product is added to Portland
cement: approx. € 5 à 10 per ton
(Claimed) value in €/ton
And/or (options): avoided soil
decontamination costs /
< € 10/ton / > € 10/ton
Other costs No information available about cost items like labour,
maintenance and site protection.
Q
Table 3: Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Financial risks and
securities; business case
MCD (EDL): There are limited financial risks related to
the ACM destruction capabilities of the proven MCD
technology. The scalability and effectiveness of the
process is well documented, with continuing
development demonstrating greater efficacy for ACM
destruction.
An operational plant can be modified following
installation (within reason), to achieve optimal ACM
destruction based on continuous monitoring and R&D.
MCD provides the benefit of previous scrutinization for
technology development, including cost benefit analysis
over other technologies; conducted by the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF)49 and United Nations
Development Program (UNDP)50 for recalcitrant organic
contaminants. ACM destruction can be achieved in
shorter time frames, and using (significantly) less power,
than comparable thermal treatment methods.
The empirical and documented evidence of EDL’s MCD
process provides justification for proposed ACM
Q 8, 9
49 https://www.thegef.org 50 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.hmtl
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
112
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
degradation project(s), based on both the expected
commercial benefit as well as the positive environmental
outcomes.
Public and
administrative
acceptance
MCD (EDL): Public (and administrative) acceptance is
expected for a number of reasons:
• The final product is an inert powder which can be
safely reused in civil engineering applications.
• No legacy issues associated with the recycled ACM.
• Destruction takes place in a closed system, at low
temperatures.
• Sustainable approach, with comparatively less energy
and resources used to treat ACM.
Q 9
Potential CO2 footprint Based on the estimation made for the
parameter Energy balance with
replacement product the potential CO2
footprint is estimated as small to
medium.
At request of UNEP, EDL are now
investigating solar power to reduce the
overall fossil-fuel requirement for on-
site generated power, subject to site-
specific conditions.
Renewable power systems to offset the
carbon footprint of any process is
inherently beneficial for public and
market acceptance. Therefore, EDL
will consider the application of
renewable energy sources (i.e. solar)
for a full-scale operational plant for
ACM treatment.
Options: Small / medium /
large
/ very large
(For the purpose of this study
it would take too far to
actually calculate the
potential CO2 footprint;
therefore a rough scale is
used, built on more concrete
and precise basic parameters)
10
Actual market prices MCD (EDL): The March 2018 trials will give actual
information about the costs per ton ACM.
Actual
price in
€/ton
Table 4: Overall assessment
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Technology readiness
level (see table 1)
MCD (EDL): estimated as TRL 8/9 Scale (see above)
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
113
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Distance to market MCD (EDL): Distance to market is small and depends on
technical and non-technical issues. The technique is
proven, but the proof on industrial scale has still to be
delivered and the pre-treatment demands are strict (size
crushed and moisture content of ACM). The installation
has a short construction time.
The capital investments are relatively low, which is also
the case for the energy consumption. A positive business
case is expected (profitably operation is expected for a
gate fee which is considerably lower than LAP3’s
maximum gate fee of € 205 per ton).
Q
Sustainability aspects (+) simplicity and robustness of the process (less quality
control parameters), complete fibre destruction, re-
usable end-product, modular, scalable and transportable
installation and the relatively simple environmental
control techniques
(-) energy use (process and pre-process, including
(intensive) drying of ACM, which takes 25% of the total
energy consumption), occupational health and safety and
environmental risks of pre-processing and ultra-fine end-
product
Q
Area of application EDL’trials to date have focussed on asbestos cement
products containing chrysotile and crocidolite. A
homogeneous feed of asbestos cement makes the process
more controllable and guarantees a qualitatively better
and certifiable end-product.
Q
Sources
1. OVAM (a): State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and
opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
2. LLW Repository Ltd, 2016: LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste, Gate B (Preferred
Options) Study. Holmrook, Cumbria UK, NWP-REP-106 issue 1, 2016.
3. Spasiano, D. And F. Priozzi; ‘Treatment of Asbestos Containing wastes’. In: Journal of
Environmental Management, 204 (2017), 82-91
4. Plescia, P., D. Gizzi, S. Benedetti, L. Camilucci, C. Fanizza, P. De Simone and F. Paglietti:
‘Mechanochemical treatment to recycle asbestos-containing waste’. In: Waste Management 23
(2003), 209-218
5. Colangelo, F., R. Cioffi, M. Lavorgna, L. Verdolotti, L. De Stefano: ‘Treatment and recycling of
asbestos cement containing waste’. In: Journal of Hazardous Materials 195 (2011), 391-397
6. Baláz, P., ’Chapter 2 High-Energy Milling’., In: Mechanochemistry in Nanoscience and Minerals
Engineering (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 2008, pp. 103 – 132.
7. Mechano-Chemical Destruction (MCDTM) of asbestos containing materials - Environmental
Decontamination Limited, November 2017
8. Criteria list for asbestos waste treatment - MCDTM Technology, 19 February 2018
9. Notes on the exchange of information with Environmental Decontamination Europe Ltd, 12
March 2018
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
114
10. Letter from EDL addressed to the Bureau KLB projectteam entitled: Assessment Response -
MCDTM Asbestos waste Treatment, April 2018
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
115
Analysis sheet: Biological processes Table 1: Technical parameters
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Treatment Mechanism Exposure of asbestos fibres to fungi (and/or
lichens and bacteria) and/or other natural
occurring environments. Some types of fungi
produce organic acids and/or chelates which can
leach out Mg (chrysotile) and/or Fe (crocidolite
and amosite). If this reaction is completed, the
typical chemical and crystalline structure of
asbestos is decomposed in such a way that no
carcinogenic activity remains.
Q 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Type of process Biological degradation of asbestos fibres and
asbestos fibres in a matrix of cement
Q 4, 5, 6
Process time Month/years, depending
on conditions on site (soil)
or in special designed bio
reaction vessels
Scale: mins / hrs /days / months /
years / centuries
4, 5
Process temperature Contaminated soil in situ:
natural temperature
Asbestos cement products
in bioreactor:
approximately 20 oC
oC 4, 5
Energy requirements Contaminated soil in situ:
no external energy needed
AC-products in bioreactor:
energy consumption
(milling and continuous
mixing) is low compared to
thermal treatment methods
kWh/ton 4, 5
Input requirements /
acceptance criteria
Chrysotile, friable
Chrysotile as well as
asbestos cement
Soil contaminated with
asbestos cement products
as well as loose fibres and
aggregates
Options: chrysotile / ‘pure,
friable’ asbestos / asbestos
cement/ asbestos containing scrap
metal / asbestos containing soil /
all ACM / other (to be explained)
4, 5
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
116
Parameter Value Q or scale Source no.
Pre-processing (energy)
requirements
Asbestos must be available
for fungi/lichens/bacteria
and/or a natural or an
artificially created
environment.
In soil: as present, no or
minor requirements
Asbestos cement products:
must be reduced to
optimum size for
availability to fungi and
suitable pH value.
Options: pre-separated / reduced
in size / grinded / milled / dried /
none / other; plus kWh/ton
4, 5
Additives (chemicals) or
other
Other: fungal cultures
(and/or lichens and
bacteria) with their
nutrients
Options: reactive chemicals /
inert substances / other
4, 5
Fibre destruction Full destruction claimed for
chrysotile fibres at
optimum conditions
Asymptotic decay of the
reaction rate in a natural
environment (soil)
Options: full destruction /
asymptotic decay of the reaction
rate / none / other
4, 5
Mass / volume reduction No data %
Reusability of end-product For soil in situ: clean soil
Asbestos cement: low-
grade inert filler
(reusability of end-product:
to be proved)
Options: None51 / inert filler /
building material (civil
engineering) / active substance
(cement, clay) / clean soil / other
4, 5
Installation type / size For contaminated soil: in
situ with added fungi and
nutrients
Asbestos cement and other
asbestos containing
materials (ACM): fixed
small/medium scale
(special designed bio-
reactors)
Options: On site / mobile /
temporary / fixed medium scale /
fixed large scale / other
4, 5
Installation capacity Soil in situ: 10.000-
100.000 tons/year
Asbestos cement: 1000
tons/year using optimum
sized bioreactors
Scale: <1.000 / 1.000 – 10.000 /
10.000 – 100.000 / > 100.000
tons/year
4, 5
(estimation
by Bureau
KLB)
Proven technique Lab scale / Pilot trials Options: lab scale / pilot trials /
upscaled / fully operational
51 Strictly speaking this option disqualifies a technique, given the requirements of LAP 3 (see footnote 21).
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
117
Table 2: Non-technical parameters (reasonably objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Logistical Soil in situ: no transport
Asbestos cement using bioreactors: asbestos
cement has to be transported to the site where the
bioreactors are stationed or the (medium sized)
bioreactors are transported to the location where
the asbestos cement is remediated.
Q 4, 5
Quality Assurance (QA)
aspects (robustness et
cetera)
Conversion rate of the asbestos as well as other
crucial parameters must be monitored during the
conversion process
Complete conversion must be proved by means of
well documented analytical procedures
Q 4, 5
Risk aspects (in relation to
transport, occupational
H&S, residents and environ-
ment, end-product, other
waste)
Using fungi (and/or lichens and bacteria) outside
laboratories is not risk-free. An important
research aspect is the selection of ‘intrinsically’
safe fungi (high level of control based on the
available asbestos mineral ‘diet’ – no chance of
survival in case of absence of the specific diet).
Soil in situ: Apart from site management/-
protection for a longer period, no additional risks
are to be expected because of the completely
natural conditions (‘doesn’t hurt to try’)
Asbestos cement using bioreactors: AC sheets
must be transported (transport risks) and must
be broken into pieces to optimum size (H&S
risks).
H&S risks can be controlled by using
standardized methods and control measures
Q 4, 5
Energy balance with
replacement product
No data Q
Costs in relation to energy
use
No claims yet, but costs will
be relatively low (AC using
bioreactors) to very low
(soil in situ)
Costs (in actual market prices) in
€/ton and/or (scale): < € 10/ton;
€ 10 – 100/ton; € 100 – 200/ton;
€ 200 – 500/ton; > € 500/ton
4, 5
Installation investments Contaminated soil in situ:
low cost (<1 million),
Asbestos cement and other
ACM in bioreactors: 1-10
million (too early to make a
realistic estimate )
(Claimed) investments in €
and/or scale: < 1 million € 1
million – 20 million; > € 20
million
(Market) value of end-
product
Contaminated soil: avoided
soil decontamination costs:
> € 10/ton.
Asbestos cement and other
ACM: < € 10/ton
(Claimed) value in €/ton
And/or (options): avoided soil
decontamination costs /
< € 10/ton / > € 10/ton
4, 5
(estimation
by Bureau
KLB)
Other costs No data Q
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
118
Table 3: Non-technical parameters (hardly objectifiable)
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Financial risks and securities;
business case
Relatively low: low investments costs
(bioreactors), low or very low energy
consumption
Q 4, 5
Public and administrative
acceptance
Hardly any data. Will probably depend on
location. The impact of biological processes on
the environment is expected to be low, which can
be a promoting factor for public acceptance
Q 4, 5
Potential CO2 footprint Asbestos in soil: small
Asbestos cement products:
medium
Options: Small / medium /large
/very large
(For the purpose of this study it
would take too far to actually
calculate the potential CO2
footprint; therefore a rough scale
is used, built on more concrete
and precise basic parameters)
Actual market prices Too early for a reliable
estimation
Actual price in €/ton 4, 5
Table 4: Overall assessment
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
Technology readiness level
(see table 1)
Asbestos in soil (free fibres in situ): TRL 5 - 6
Asbestos cement and other ACM (in bioreactor):
TRL 1 - 3
Scale
Distance to market Asbestos in soil (free fibres in situ): Distance to
market is relatively small : it can be used at semi
industrial scale at low (investment) costs, it will
generate hardly any disturbance of the
environment (public acceptance) and excavation
can be prevented. On the other hand the
completeness of asbestos fibre destruction is not
yet proven in real life situations and biological
remediation is a slow process.
Asbestos cement and other ACM (in bioreactor):
distance to market is big; early stage of
developmental
Q
Sustainability aspects Asbestos in soil: the energy consumption is low,
the CO2 footprint is expected to be low/small and
no transport is required. A careful control of the
completeness of the fibre destruction (asymptotic
decay of reaction rate) and optimization of the
analytical procedures (analysis of the complex
transition states) is needed.
Asbestos cement and other ACM (bioreactors): (in
addition to asbestos in soil) energy consumption
and the CO2 footprint is higher (medium) because
of the pre-treatment (break into pieces/crushing).
Transport is needed, for ACM to location where
Q
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
119
Parameter Value Q1 or scale Source no.
the bioreactors being in operation or bioreactors
to the remediation locations.
Area of application Remediation of asbestos contaminated sites in
situ (not suited for locations with bagged waste
(e.g. landfill sites)). New approaches/rules of
landfill might create new possibilities for
biological degradation at landfill sites.
Biological degradation of asbestos cement and
other ACM might be possible in future but still
requires much research.
Q
Sources
1. OVAM (a): State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints and
opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
2. LLW Repository Ltd, 2016: LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste, Gate B (Preferred
Options) Study. Holmrook, Cumbria UK, NWP-REP-106 issue 1, 2016.
3. Spasiano, D. and F. Pirozzi: ‘Treatments of asbestos containing wastes’. In: Journal of
Environmental Management 204, 2017, pp. 82 – 91.
4. Appendix report – Appendix report to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques – Part 2 Interview reports: Interview met Arcadis.
5. Appendix report – Appendix report to Bureau KLB report on the assessment of asbestos waste
treatment techniques – Part 2 Interview reports: Interview met Deltares.
6. Daghino, S, F. Turci, M. Tomatis, M. Girlanda, B. Fubini, S. Perotto, Weathering of chrysotile
asbestos by the serpentine rock-inhabiting fungus Verticillium leptobactrum, University of
Torino. In: FEMS Microbiol Ecol 69, May 2009, pp 132-141.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
121
Annex 2: List of consulted persons
Participants of the Advisory Commission
Ronald Flipphi Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
Peter Frijns Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
Hein Haak Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Evelyn Heugens National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM); on behalf of the programme ‘Ruimte in Regels’
Marjorie Jacquemijns National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM)
Nienke Smith Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
Mart Stotijn Central Government Real Estate Agency
Rosalien de Vos Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy; programme
‘Ruimte in Regels’
Participants of the Sounding Board
Kris Broos VITO, Belgium
Garry Burdett HSE, United Kingdom
Sam Hertsens ABO, Belgium
Reiner König APC / VDI Arbeitsgruppe Asbest, Germany
Hielke Kuitert ISZW, The Netherlands (Labour Inspectorate)
Markus Mattenklott IFA / VDI Arbeitsgruppe Asbest , Germany
John Mordang ILT, The Netherlands (Environmental Inspectorate)
Sven de Mulder OVAM, Belgium
René Tankink Tauw, The Netherlands
Peter Tromp TNO, The Netherlands
Matthijs Wetterauw Arcadis, The Netherlands
List of experts that were interviewed
Huig Bergsma BodemBergsma
Bert Bult Purified Metal Company
Joost Bouman Afvalzorg, adviseur strategie
Marco Dees AM&P-Groep
Jan Gerritse Deltares
Marcus Glucina EDL, regional director
Kapish Gobindlal EDL, senior scientist
Chris Haydon EDL, director
Stefan Jansen Deltares
Diederik Jaspers CE Delft
Chris Kamp AM&P-Groep
Pol Knops Green Minerals
Clemens Lourens Afvalzorg, KAM coördinator
Frank Moorkamp Procedé
Inez Postema Deltalinqs
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
122
Anton Reef Twee “R” Recycling groep BV
Hans Slootweg Infestos Nederland BV
Niels Smit Afvalzorg, accountmanager
René Tankink Tauw
Geert Versteeg Procedé
Arie van Vliet AM&P-Groep
Matthijs Wetterauw Arcadis
Jan Henk Wijma Purified Metal Company
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
123
Annex 3: References
Abruzzese, C., Marabini, A.B., Paglietti, F., Plescia, P., 1998. In: Mishra, B. (Ed.),
‘CORDIAM Process: a New Treatment for Asbestos Wastes’, pp. 563-577. EPD Congress
Book.
Alimenta, R., ‘Whey for denuturizing asbestos’, 2017, http://alimentasrl.com/4273/whey-
for-denaturizing-asbestos-copy.html.
ARI Technologies Inc., ‘Ten-Day Asbestos Destruction Demonstration using
Thermochemical Conversion Technology – Final Report’, 2007.
Baláz, P., W. S. Choi, M. Fabiam, E. Godocikova, ‘Mechanochemistry in the preparation of
advanced materials’. In: Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 2006, Cislo 2, pp. 122 – 129.
Baláz, P., ’Chapter 2 High-Energy Milling’., In: Mechanochemistry in Nanoscience and
Minerals Engineering (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 2008, pp. 103 – 132.
Balaz, P., E. Dutkova: ‘Fine milling in applied mechanochemistry’. In: Miner. Eng., 2009,
22 (7), pp. 681-694.
Balducci, G., E. Foresti, M. Lelli, I.G. Lesci, M. Marchetti, F. Pierini, N. Roveri (inventors):
‘Process for treating an asbestos containing material’, 2012, European Patent Application,
EP 2 428 254 A1.
Bhattacharya, S., P.J. John, L. Ledwani: ‘Bacterial Weathering of Asbestos’. In: Silicon,
2015, 7: pp. 419 – 431.
Bodor, M., R.M. Santos, T. van Gerven, M. Vlad: ‘Recent developments ad perspectives on
the treatment of industrial wastes by mineral carbonation – a review’. In: Central
European Journal of Engineering, 2013, pp. 566 – 584.
Boeren, F.E., L.E. Havenaar-van Buijsen and R.W.J. Smulders: Startnotitie milieueffect-
rapportage – Thermische denaturering van asbestcement producten, Oranjewoud, 2004.
Cioska, T.H., A. Dorywala, T. Gerdes, R. Borchert, A. Rosin (inventors): ‘Asbestos
degradation process with alkali metal hydroxides’, 2006, European Patent Application, EP
1 671 682 A1.
Colangelo, F., R. Cioffi, M. Lavorgna, L. Verdolotti, L. De Stefano: ‘Treatment and recycling
of asbestos cement containing waste’. In: Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 195, pp
391 – 397.
Daghino, S., Turci, F., Tomatis, M., Favier, A., Perotto, S., Douki, T., Fubini, B., 2006, ‘Soil
fungi reduce the iron content and the DNA damaging effects of asbestos fibers’. In:
Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5793e5798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060881v.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
124
Daghino, S, F. Turci, M. Tomatis, M. Girlanda, B. Fubini, S. Perotto, ‘Weathering of
chrysotile asbestos by the serpentine rock-inhabiting fungus Verticillium leptobactrum’,
University of Torino,In: FEMS Microbiol Ecol 69, May 2009, pp 132 - 141.
Dellisanti, F., P. I. Rossi, G. Valdrè, ‘Remediation of asbestos containing materials by Joule
heating vitrification performed in a pre-pilot apparatus’. In: Int J. Miner. Process. 91,
2009, pp 61 – 67.
Downey, A., D. M. Timmons, ‘Study into the applicability of thermochemical conversion
technology to legacy asbestos wastes in the UK’. In: Conference paper of the WM’05
Conference Tucson AZ, 2005.
EDL, ‘Mechano-Chemical Destruction (MCDTM) of Asbestos Containing Materials’, 2017,
Report Reference ASB-001/Nov17.
Fujishige, M., N. Tamura, I Karasawa and A. Kojima: ‘Detoxification of asbestos by laser-
induced rapid melting.’ In: The Gunma-Kohsen Review, no. 33, 2014, pp. 85 – 90.
Finucane, K. G., L.E. Thompson, T. Abuku, H. Nakauchi: ‘Treatment of Asbestos Wastes
Using the Geomelt Vitrification Process’. In: Conference notes (abstract #8261) of: WM
2008 Conference, 2008, Phoeniz, AZ.
Gaggero, L., V. Caratto and M. Ferretti: ‘Self-Sustained Combustion Synthesis and
Asbestos-Bearing Waste: Scaling Up From Laboratory Towards Pre-Industrial Size Plant’.
In: Energy Procedia 97, 2016, pp. 515 – 522.
Gomez, E., A. Rani, C. Cheeseman, D. Deegan, M. Wise, A. Boccaccini: ‘Thermal plasma
technology for the treatment of wastes: A critical review’. In: Journal of Hazardous
Materials 161, 2009, pp. 614 – 626.
Heberlein, J. and A.B. Murphy: ‘Thermal plasma waste treatment’. In: Journal of Physics
D; Applied Physics, 2008, pp. 1 – 20.
Kashimura, K., Yamaguchi, T., Sato, M., Yoneda, S., Kishima, T., Horikoshi, S., Yoshikawa,
N., Mitani, T., Shinohara, N., 2015, ‘Rapid transformation of asbestos into harmless waste
by a microwave rotary furnace: application of microwave heating to rubble processing of
the 2011 Tohoku earthquake’, In: J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 19 (3),
04014041e04014048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) HZ.2153-5515.0000249.
Kusiorowski, R., T. Zaremba, J. Piotrowski and J. Adamek: ‘Thermal decomposition of
different types of asbestos’. In: Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. Volume 109,
2012, pp 693 – 704.
Lázár, M., M. Čarnogurská, T. Brestovič, N. Jasminská, Ľ. Kmeťová, Ľ. Kapustová and T.
Jezný: ‘High-Temperature Processing of Asbestos cement Roofing Material in a Plasma
Reactor.’ In: Pol. J. Environ. Stud. Vol. 25, No. 5, 2016, pp. 2027 – 2033.
Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018 Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment
125
LLW Repository Ltd, 2016: LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste, Gate B
(Preferred Options) Study. Holmrook, Cumbria UK, NWP-REP-106 issue 1, 2016.
Mihaly, H.: ‘From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation’.
In: The Innovation Journal, 2017, nr. 22, pp. 1 – 23.
O Conner, W.K., D.C. Dahlin, D.N. Nilsen, G.E. Rush, R.P. Walters, P.C. Turner: ‘Carbon
dioxide Sequestration by Direct Mineral Carbonation: Results from Recent Studies and
Current Status’, 2000 (approx.), Albany Research Center Office of Fossil Energy, USDOE
1450 Queen Ave SW Albany, OR 97321.
OVAM (a): State of the art: asbestos – possible treatment methods in Flanders: constraints
and opportunities. Mechelen, 2016.
OVAM (b): Duurzaam tussentijds gebruik van stortplaatsen. Mechelen, 2016.
Pan, S-Y., E.E. Chang, P-C. Chiang: ‘CO2 Capture by Accelerated Carbonation of Alkaline
Wastes: A Review on Its Principles and Applications’. In: Aerosol and Air Quality
Research, 2012, 12: pp. 770 – 791.
Parosa, R., ‘Rendering of Waste by Application of Microwave Energy’. In: Ampere
Newsletter, Issue 92, 2017, pp. 18 – 23.
Pawelczyk, A., F. Bozek, K. Grabas, J. Checmanowski: ‘Chemical elimination of the harmful
properties of asbestos from military facilities’. In: Waste management, 2017, 61: pp. 377 –
385.
Plescia, P., D. Gizzi, S. Benedetti, L. Camilucci, C. Fanizza, P. De Simone and F. Paglietti:
‘Mechanochemical treatment to recycling asbestos-containing waste’. In: Waste
Management 23, 2003, pp. 209 – 218.
Radvanec, M., L. Tucek, J. Derco, K. Cechovska, Z. Németh: ‘Change of carcinogenic
chrysotile fibers in the asbestos cement (eternit) to harmless waste by artificial
carbonatization: Petrological and technological results’. In: Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 2013, Volumes 252-253, pp. 390 – 400.
Roveri, N., I.G. Lesci, S. Petrarola, F. De Laurentis, M. Lelli, O. Mezini, G. Montebugnoli, S.
Merli, E. D’Amen and R. Gallerani (inventors), ‘Proces for biological denaturation of an
asbestos-containing material’, 2017, United States Patent Application Publication, Pub.
No.: US 2017/0043198 A1.
Royal Haskoning DHV: ‘Milieueffectrapportage PMC – bijlage 1 behorend bij aanvraag
omgevingsvergunning’. 2017, versie0.4/Finale versie (Referentie: I&BBE9880-103-
100R002FO.4).
Rozalen, M. and F. J. Huertas: ‘Comparative effect of chrysotile leaching in nitric, sulfuric
and oxalic acids at room temperature’. In: Chemical Geology, 2013, 352: pp. 134 – 142.
Practicable sustainable options for asbestos waste treatment Bureau KLB, June 18, 2018
126
Spasiano, D. and F. Pirozzi: ‘Treatments of asbestos containing wastes’. In: Journal of
Environmental Management 204, 2017, pp. 82 – 91.
Sugama, T., R. Sabatini, L. Petrakis: ‘Decomposition of Chrysotile Asbestos by
Fluorsulfonic Acid’. In: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1998, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 79 – 88.
Tauw: Onderzoek functioneren certificatiestelsel asbest, 2017.
Tauw: Onderzoek procesvoorwaarden voor duurzame verwerking asbesthoudend afval,
2018.
Trapasso, F., D. Croci, P. Plescia, E. Tempesta: ‘Asbestos waste carbonation: a new asbestos
treatment with CO2 recovery’. In: Conference Paper of 3rd International Conference on
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management, Crete, 2012.
Trefler, B., A. Pawelczyk, M. Nowak: ‘The waste free method of utilizing asbestos and the
products containing asbestos’. In: Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, 2004, 6, 4, pp.
60 – 63.
Turci, F., M. Colonna, M. Tomatis, S. Mantegna, G. Cravotto and B. Fubini: ‘New
Detoxification Processes for Asbestos Fibers in the Environment’. In: Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 2010, 73: 5-6, pp. 368 – 377.
Veetil, S. P., G. Mercier, J.F. Blais, E. Cecchi, S. Kentish: ‘CO2 Sequestration by Direct Dry
Gas-solid Contact of Serpentine Mining Residues: A Solution for Industrial CO2 Emission’.
In: International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Remediation, 2014, Volume 2,
Issue 2, pp. 52 – 58.
Yoon, S., Y. Roh: ‘Carbon sequestration using asbestos-containing slate waste:
detoxification of asbestos and carbonate mineralization’. In: Mineralogical Magazine,
Goldschmidt 2012 Conference Abstracts, 2012, pp. 2576.